Once Again, Cops Ignore Warnings About Shooter

[Wry Catcher]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

 

[fncceo]

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Being investigated in no way insinuates an actual threat in a legal system with due process.

 

[depotoo]

In 2011 he was. He was also ordered by the judge into therapy.

Jarrod Ramos, 38, identified as suspect in Annapolis shooting
According to an unreported 2015 opinion filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Ramos pleaded guilty to criminal harassment in July 2011. Five days later, an article about the case appeared in The Capital, one of Capital Gazette's publications. The story detailed accusations by a woman who said Ramos harassed her online and off for months, calling her employer and trying to get her fired. The woman eventually went to the police and Ramos pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of harassment in 2011.

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

 

[eflatminor]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

I've heard that the trigger pull has quite a bit to do with how far under the microscope courts tend to go on this issue. Again, not talking about generalized legality, Obviously they are all legal to carry, I'm focusing in on the "perceived trigger pull in a court of law"... (accidental trigger pull due to shaky hands etc w/ SA)

I see. I suppose I wouldn't use a firearm with a modified trigger pull for self defense, as one might use in a shooting competition. As long you're using the factory trigger, you're good. If you do get a trigger job, I wouldn't have a light pull. Keep is the same as the factory, though likely smoother.

Double vs single action, IMO, would make no difference.

 

[eflatminor]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Being investigated in no way insinuates an actual threat in a legal system with due process.

True. Nothing in my comment would have denied due process.

 

[eflatminor]

In 2011 he was. He was also ordered by the judge into therapy.

Jarrod Ramos, 38, identified as suspect in Annapolis shooting
According to an unreported 2015 opinion filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Ramos pleaded guilty to criminal harassment in July 2011. Five days later, an article about the case appeared in The Capital, one of Capital Gazette's publications. The story detailed accusations by a woman who said Ramos harassed her online and off for months, calling her employer and trying to get her fired. The woman eventually went to the police and Ramos pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of harassment in 2011.

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

Did not know that and it wasn't in the link.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

 

[depotoo]

That’s why I don’t accept anything at face value.

In 2011 he was. He was also ordered by the judge into therapy.

Jarrod Ramos, 38, identified as suspect in Annapolis shooting
According to an unreported 2015 opinion filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Ramos pleaded guilty to criminal harassment in July 2011. Five days later, an article about the case appeared in The Capital, one of Capital Gazette's publications. The story detailed accusations by a woman who said Ramos harassed her online and off for months, calling her employer and trying to get her fired. The woman eventually went to the police and Ramos pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of harassment in 2011.

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

Did not know that and it wasn't in the link.

 

[MindWars]

This is just a common thread in these shootings.

We have a mental health database and the cops are supposed to investigate warnings, but most of the time they do not follow through.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/29/accused-newsroom-shooters-stalking-victim-i-warned-cops/

So it must be the usual, when they ignore it the higher echelons told them to " stand down" , or oh wait there was a drill happening at the same time, same day bs story.

 

[MindWars]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

'Most dangerous person I've ever dealt with': Lawyer feared newspaper murder suspect

This happened years ago, the stalking of the woman.

So you're saying he got less crazy over the years?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Being investigated in no way insinuates an actual threat in a legal system with due process.

Had the woman obtained a restraining order, would that have made a difference? I would assume it would.

 

[eflatminor]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

An investigation is not due process. Fail.

 

[August West]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Becaus
U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

They confiscated guns from people who really didn`t have many and then Hitler had one of the world`s greatest gun giveaways. He gave away millions and the lucky ones got tanks and flamethrowers. He gave them snappy looking uniforms to wear too. Those idiotic emails have been circulating for 20 years and they`re still idiotic. Were not allowed to create our own historical facts btw.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Hitler-Stalin-and-Lenin-confiscate-guns

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

'Most dangerous person I've ever dealt with': Lawyer feared newspaper murder suspect

This happened years ago, the stalking of the woman.

Nutty Hannity blamed the shooting on Maxine Waters and Obama.
https://www.sfgate.com/entertainmen...y-Blames-Maxine-Waters-Obama-for-13035125.php

Didn’t see any specifics in that ad laced with occasional reporting.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Being investigated in no way insinuates an actual threat in a legal system with due process.

Had the woman obtained a restraining order, would that have made a difference? I would assume it would.

It would have IMO, however there are problems with Protective Orders, since these orders sunset after a period of time, and the agency which responds has not received a copy of the order.

Which is why a national and comprehensive data base needs to be established, accessible 24-7, and every reporting agency required to provide records, do so,so the records are correct and timely. If not they should be fined and held civilly responsible if such data is not shared and someone is hurt or killed or detained.

Another issue can arise when the victim initiated contact with the person restrained, or, when s/he reestablishes a relationship and never notifies the authorities leaving the data base out of date.

 

[2aguy]

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?
If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

They confiscated guns from people who really didn`t have many and then Hitler had one of the world`s greatest gun giveaways. He gave away millions and the lucky ones got tanks and flamethrowers. He gave them snappy looking uniforms to wear too. Those idiotic emails have been circulating for 20 years and they`re still idiotic. Were not allowed to create our own historical facts btw.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Hitler-Stalin-and-Lenin-confiscate-guns

Wrong again...

When the Nazis Came for the Guns



By the time the Nazi Party launched a concerted nationwide attack upon the Jews, there was nothing the Jews could do. The time for defending themselves had long since passed.

Helga's father certainly couldn't fight back. A year before, they had come for his guns. Since he had been a German officer in the Kaiser's army in the Great War, the Nazis assumed, erroneously, it turned out, that he had at least kept his sidearm. They relented on his traditional officer's sword, reasoning that it was no match for bullets anyway.

The Nazis had in their possession a national registry of gun-owners. When they came to power in 1933, they knew exactly who had what kind of gun and how many.

And they didn't even have to compile the registry themselves.

A few years earlier, the Interior Minister of the German Weimar government had started the gun ownership registry as a way of keeping tabs on extremist groups in Germany, such as the communists...and the Nazis. The national registry was thorough, precise, and extensive. But not public. The Weimar interior minister was wary of it falling into the wrong hands, like those of the Nazi extremists he warned of.

Shortly afterward, with the Nazis finally coming to power, he and his staff either neglected to destroy the list or ran out of time. So in one of their first acts after Hitler was elected to govern Germany – yes, he really was elected by the German people – the Nazis quickly went about confiscating the guns through the German gun-owner registry.

The gun confiscation was highly selective. The Nazis allowed their loyal minions to keep their guns and even encouraged them to get more. Those Germans deemed suspect, or declared enemies of the state, had their guns confiscated. After the Nazis disarmed the rival communists, they targeted the Jews. Within a year they had visited the homes and shops of every Jewish gun owner in Germany and taken away their guns.

The Nazis were nervous about any of their real or imagined domestic enemies shooting back at them. They were especially nervous about the Jews, paranoid to the point where even after they confiscated the guns of all the registered Jewish gun-owners, they still went after the Jewish war veterans. This is why they ended up at Helga's home in Wesel in 1937.

Thus, when the Kristallnacht rampage happened a year later, the Jews didn't shoot a single bullet in self-defense because they didn't have any guns to shoot with. The Nazis had made sure of it.

Of the 30,000 defenseless Jewish men rounded up that night, only a few survived to the end of the war. How many would have lived had they been armed when the Nazis came for them? We can never know. Yet we can a least surmise that it would have been more than a few, probably many more.

The Nazi security forces certainly had an endless supply of firearms and the power of the state behind them. But picture an armed German Jewish resistance network in 1938. Word gets around that the Nazis are coming for the Jews. They load their guns and concoct a last ditch-effort to fend them off, allowing more Jews to escape through an Underground Jewish Railroad type of network. They shoot a lot of Nazis in the process and buy enough time for the rest to make it the borders of those still at peace neighboring countries.

 

[bodecea]

'Most dangerous person I've ever dealt with': Lawyer feared newspaper murder suspect

This happened years ago, the stalking of the woman.

Another INCEL, eh?

 

[2aguy]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally


Yeah....they could do that just like they did for the Pulse Night Club shooter..... you know, where a co-worker reported him as a possible terrorist, and the FBI initiated a year long investigation, approached him with an undercover operative, questioned him 3 times with professional FBI interrogators, and did a detailed background check.......oh, not to forget the background check his employer did when he became a security guard, or the background checks they did when he purchased each of the guns he used to kill 49 people...

That level of background check worked out just fine...right? Meanwhile, in New York, the single mother working as a nurse can't get a gun permit so she won't be raped at a bus stop.....

Or like the vetting process for the guy with the dishonorable discharge from the Air Force who still passed a background check for the gun he used to kill 26 people at the Texas Church....