Yep False Flag - Buffalo Shooter Investigated in 2020 Then Allowed to Buy a Shotgun

But he lied on the NICS form. They ASK if you've ever been detained/held for psych reasons.

And the school KNEW he was nucking futs. Parents/school/local cops did NOTHING....
Negative, in the eyes of federal law he did not lie on the 4473. https://formswift.com/atf-form-4473

Section 11, Question F

Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective? OR Have you ever been committed to a mental institution? Yes___ No___

As far as I know he was neither adjudicated nor committed.

Do you have info on the perp's adjudication or commitment for mental defectiveness that I am unaware of? If so please share as I'd like to know.
 
Negative, in the eyes of federal law he did not lie on the 4473. https://formswift.com/atf-form-4473

Section 11, Question F

Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective? OR Have you ever been committed to a mental institution? Yes___ No___

As far as I know he was neither adjudicated nor committed.

Do you have info on the perp's adjudication or commitment for mental defectiveness that I am unaware of? If so please share as I'd like to know.

That definition of "committed to a mental institution" has been in flux for a decade. PRE-Heller decision -- even a "short committment" COULD qualify under state law. And it varied WIDELY under the individual states.

You are correct. But the problem here is that this kid SHOULD have been adjudicated as a potential threat to himself and others and DOZENS of people and entity dropped the ball. If not for the threat of a school shooting, then later on when he appeared in a full Hazmat suit from head to toe in class. OR the 100+ page hateful, racist manifesto outlining his intentions of violence that never got reported. FBI and DOJ wants to "tag" parents for school board disagreements but doesn't get a tip on potential "troubled school shooter"??????????



Emergency Admission or
Hospitalization
As noted above, state law may authorize a health care provider to admit a patient to involuntary psychiatric treatment, particularly in emergency situations for a brief duration. In these limited instances, it is possible that a health care provider would be considered an “other lawful authority,” and the patient receiving involuntary psychiatric treatment would fall within the definition of “committed to a mental institution” for purposes of the GCA. For example, in United States v. Waters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the involuntary
hospitalization of an alleged mentally ill individual pursuant to New York state law14 met the definition of an “involuntary commitment” for purposes of the GCA, even though the hospitalization was ordered by the director of a hospital upon the certification of two physicians.15

However, at least one federal court has held that the Supreme Court’s recent recognition of
an individual right to possess a firearm in District of Columbia v. Heller,16 suggests that some
emergency hospitalization or commitment procedures should not be included within the meaning of “involuntary commitment” for purposes of the GCA. In United States v. Rehlander, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit) considered a Maine law which provides
authority for the brief, but involuntary, detention of individuals in mental institutions on the basis
of a medical provider’s examination and certification that the individual is mentally ill and poses
a likelihood of serious harm.17 In pre-Heller cases, the First Circuit had held that this emergency
hospitalization under Maine law qualified as “involuntary commitment” under the GCA.18
However, because the procedures under state law were ex parte19 and did not have additional
procedural safeguards, the court held that construing the emergency hospitalization procedures to qualify as “involuntary commitment” under the GCA post-Heller would risk depriving
individuals of their right to bear arms without sufficient due process. Therefore, the appellate
court overturned its earlier decisions and held that such emergency hospitalizations were not
“involuntary commitments.”


--------------------------------------------------

I'm no fan of making it EASY to call someone "mentally defective" or have an isolated breakdown or need for meds disqualify their rights without a method of clearing all that at a future date.

But I will SAY -- ALL these cases, require SCHOOLS in particular and local law enforcement to TRACK these cases and REQUIRE treatment or commitment. And that's would have prevented probably DOZENS of the worst mass shooting events by juveniles. Law enforcement at SOME LEVEL should have tracking this kids' social media. If an EMPLOYER can dig back a decade for a hire -- situations like this ONE should be AUTOMATIC. And the kid PUT ON NOTICE that he's being monitored. If that requires a court date and a charge -- so be it.
 
That isn't a "false flag" it's just yet another failure of the system to do it's job.

Being "investigated" does not exclude you from being legally eligible unless that investigation results in a criminal conviction or a legal finding of mental defect.

The system does it's job fine when it wants to persecute Jan. 6 rump supporters.
 
As he should have, what laws did he break to be stripped of his 2nd amendment rights?
They are saying that he had a Juvenile record---his mothers is a druggy, and that his grandpa is also a criminal who isn't allowed to own guns.
 
The big dirty secret....kids can buy guns if they're 15......which means even if they have a mental health record you cannot make it public.....so when he goes to buy a gun....and they do a background check...it comes up clean.

This is the big dirty secret the left doesn't want the rest of us to be aware of.
So if you wonder why they're trying to screw our kids up with Drag Queen hour and CRT.....this is the reason.
They want our schools to breed hatred in our children.
Damn, you're an idiot.

 
So are you saying his 2nd amendment rights should have been stripped from him?

On what grounds?
i have no problem with stripping someone of their second amendment rights after due process…and if they are found to have mental health issues after proper due process strip them away.
 
Easy to mistake incompetence for conspiracy. That's probably the case here.
 
i have no problem with stripping someone of their second amendment rights after due process…and if they are found to have mental health issues after proper due process strip them away.

So you are a believer that the 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute. That is good to hear.

In the case of both the last two mass shootings, there was nothing in the laws that would have allowed their rights to be stripped.
 
Is that enough to be stripped of his 2nd amendment rights?



and my dad is an Alcoholic, does that mean I should not be allowed to own guns?



now you want to punish people for their grand parents actions?
He had mental disorders (wearing skirts, eyeliners, known for violence, his own juvenile criminal record, and repeated run ins with police). And I am pretty sure his own drug abuse issues. How about no longer hiding juvenile records--if you are committing crimes when you are 17, you are likely to be committing crimes when you are 18. Stop hiding mental issues which guys dressing in womens clothes always indicates, realize that those torturing animals like he reportedly did is also another sign of mental issues ....and that druggy mothers should not be having any children.
 
So you are a believer that the 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute. That is good to hear.

In the case of both the last two mass shootings, there was nothing in the laws that would have allowed their rights to be stripped.
well yeah no right are absolute, the constitution clearly allows for the govt to take someone liberty, property and even life after due process of law.

have you not read the document?

Well maybe the people of NY need to change the law…in my state you lose your right if committed either involuntary or voluntarily

and actually you are wrong about texas, it’s also unlawful there to have a firearm if you have a mental health issue
 
He had mental disorders (wearing skirts, eyeliners
so you want to strip 2nd amendment rights from people for wearing skirts and eyeliner?

And I am pretty sure his own drug abuse issues.

and you know this how? Should drug abuse issue be enough to be stripped 2nd amendment rights?

Stop hiding mental issues which guys dressing in womens clothes always indicates,

this is not a mental issue.
 
well yeah no right are absolute, the constitution clearly allows for the govt to take someone liberty, property and even life after due process of law.

have you not read the document

I have. yet we have a whole thread of people freaking out because Biden said that 2nd amendment rights were not absolute. I hope you go over there and straighten them out
 
Israel hasn't had but two school shootings since 1974. You worried about being inconvenienced?
This isn't even worth responding to, but I will.

You're a typical opportunist who tries to pigeon-hole your arguments so that they can work in reality.
But Irael has had missiles fired at them on a regular basis, yet you're talking about school shootings.

The primary difference between Israel and the US they don't have their enemies running their own country.
Imagine if Muslims were running Israel....then you would understand what it's like to have Democrats running America.
 
so you want to strip 2nd amendment rights from people for wearing skirts and eyeliner?



and you know this how? Should drug abuse issue be enough to be stripped 2nd amendment rights?



this is not a mental issue.
Males wearing skirts and eyeliner---is a sign of mental issues. I am sorry but the facts speak for themselves...trannies are heavily covered in the mental issue department. Always have been. Drug abuse should be enough to strip one of a lot of "rights" --having kids, collecting welfare checks, voting
 
I have. yet we have a whole thread of people freaking out because Biden said that 2nd amendment rights were not absolute. I hope you go over there and straighten them out
He’s comment is meaningless. Xiden’s been in Washington for half a century and only made things worse.
 
so you want to strip 2nd amendment rights from people for wearing skirts and eyeliner?



and you know this how? Should drug abuse issue be enough to be stripped 2nd amendment rights?



this is not a mental issue.
Trannies are a whole host of mental problems---let's stop pretending that they (you) aren't. No crazy should be allowed guns------trannies are notoriously flat out crazy and violent. Murder is high among their ranks.

And yes hun, criminal grandfather, likely illegal grandmother with status of grandfather unknown for now, druggy mother produced 18 year old with record of crime, violence, and pervasion----he's going to have drug issues as well. Don't know why you want to argue this----impulse control and addictions are largely genetic dealing largely with the frontal lobe of the brain. Fucked up family from Mexico into drugs and crime...have mentally disturbed 18 year old and you don't think he wouldn't also be on drugs/alcohol?
 

Forum List

Back
Top