TexasCHLforum.com

gtolbert09 wrote:Until they release the actual charge, it would be difficult to speculate his rights to gun ownership.

Exactly... Newer reports are indicating a bad conduct discharge, not dishonorable, which in of itself does not preclude him from gun ownership. What I haven't seen is what the charge he was convicted of during his court martial... Seems like it was related to domestic violence, but I haven't seen what the actual charge was.

Pawpaw wrote:This may have been yet another failure of the NICS system.

The federal government's firearm transaction record, which buyers must legally fill out, asks about felony convictions. Kelley bought a Ruger AR-556 rifle, used in the attack on the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in April of last year from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, a law-enforcement official told CNN.

The purchase of the gun took place two years after Kelley had been court-martialed, imprisoned, and discharged from the military.

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-ch ... ce-2017-11

I'm willing to bet that the convicted criminal continue to commit crimes by lying on the 4473, and the NICS system failed to catch it or was not updated properly by the military.

Ruark wrote:Another thing that's notable is that the news media isn't making a PEEP about the real hero here: the guy - the "local armed resident" who engaged in a gunfight with the shooter outside the church and stopped him, apparently killing him. Not a peep. No name, nothing. Of course, there are lots of on-camera interviews with the cowboy yahoo who chased after him in his truck. Civilians shooting at bad guys is a politically incorrect news topic.

Quite a long article on USA Today about both citizens who pursued the killer. The good guy shooter is refusing to give his name to the media or be interviewed according to the article

We should be cautious about the reporting of any news source from the UK. I have noticed that they are often some of the first to report "facts" that are widely repeated, then found to be inaccurate. Also note these UK news organizations are in agreement with the UK government's stance on disarming their citizens of firearms, knives, clubs, rocks, etc.

If the passed background check at Academy is accurate, as is the domestic violence leading up to a bad conduct discharge, then there needs to be some better reporting from the military courts into NICS.

The gunman was also denied a Texas gun permit, according to Abbott.

"He was rejected either because he did not fully answer all the questions that are required to get a Texas gun permit, or he answered those questions wrong, that we still don't know," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/te ... elley.html

Frankie wrote:

The gunman was also denied a Texas gun permit, according to Abbott.

"He was rejected either because he did not fully answer all the questions that are required to get a Texas gun permit, or he answered those questions wrong, that we still don't know," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/te ... elley.html

Shocked former classmates who attended middle and high school with Texas church gunman (redacted name) described him Monday as being heavily medicated

Once again psych meds are part of the story, if true.

I agree with the person who came out of their home and shot at the suspect. Never, put yourself in front of a tv camera, give your name to the media or anything that will put you in the cloud for the rest of your life. Let law enforcement protect your identity. The left and right can ruin your life. Doing the right doesn't mean putting you in front of every news source.

Deitz83 wrote:I agree with the person who came out of their home and shot at the suspect. Never, put yourself in front of a tv camera, give your name to the media or anything that will put you in the cloud for the rest of your life. Let law enforcement protect your identity. The left and right can ruin your life. Doing the right doesn't mean putting you in front of every news source.

There is nothing to be gained by giving interviews. Secondly, if his actions did cause the death of the BG, that's not something you want to put out for public consumption, no matter how righteous it may have been. There are still emotions that need to be discussed only with professionals.

I continue to be stunned at the evil that has been perpetrated on innocents, it just breaks my heart. This scumbag was the typical deranged mass murderer - when confronted they run away and/or shoot themselves. There are more saints now in a far, far better place than this earth.

1911 Raptor wrote:This is horrible. I can tell you this that every Catholic Church in the Fort Worth and Dallas Diocese is posted 30.06 and 30.07. I haven’t seen every one but the ones I have seen are. It is my understanding that this was a directive from the Dallas and Fort Worth Bishops.

AndyC wrote:

1911 Raptor wrote:This is horrible. I can tell you this that every Catholic Church in the Fort Worth and Dallas Diocese is posted 30.06 and 30.07. I haven’t seen every one but the ones I have seen are. It is my understanding that this was a directive from the Dallas and Fort Worth Bishops.

If I were a Catholic I'd carry anyway.

Sorry if I'm going off topic here and please let me know if I should post this elsewhere. I attend a Catholic church in the DFW Area and had a question regarding the posting of the 30.06 and 30.07 signs. The main entrance to the church does not have any signage while one side door has a 30.07 and one of the others (on the opposite side of the church) has a 30.06. Even though I know of the 30.06 sign, I've always gone through the entrance that has the 30.07 sign.

My question is am I violating anything by knowing about the 30.06 sign by entering in the entrance with the 30.07 sign? I have always carried concealed while at church but have always been concerned about brushing against someone and having them "feel" my carrying. It's my understanding that the signs have to be both posted on all entrances for it to be "legal".

Back on topic. I've always gotten into discussions with my friends about my carry habits and recently got into a heated discussion about guns with one of them. Same person made an off hand remark about me carrying last year while at a holiday party at a mutual friends house and why I don't "feel safe". This was before the shooting at the Dallas Cowboy watching party recently. With everything going on around us these days, this reinforces why I carry every day no matter where I am with the exception of work.

Glad two people stepped up and did something about the shooter. No telling what would have happened if he had been allowed to continue. Now I need to get more serious about shooting more often and practicing with ALL my guns that I carry and maybe rethink what guns I rotate around. Even before this happened, I signed up for a two day class next month but I think I'm going to look into taking more.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:If the passed background check at Academy is accurate, as is the domestic violence leading up to a bad conduct discharge, then there needs to be some better reporting from the military courts into NICS.

what a horrible and horrific tragedy, and I think that you've summed this up pretty well.

It sounds as though this man was convicted in a military court of domestic violence against his wife and a young child. This should have qualified him as a prohibited person and disqualified him from owning weapons. If this is not the case, then it is clearly a legal oversight.

This crime may or may not have been prevented by making this man a prohibited person, if he hadn't gotten the rifle from Academy, then perhaps he would have obtained it in a private sale, however making him a prohibited person would serve to decrease the likelihood of this event occurring because it would increase the likelihood of this guy going to prison for illegally possessing a firearm.

That said, the fact that this man was denied his LTC should be beneficial in supporting legislation similar to HB560 in the future. Here is a case where the federal gun laws failed to identify that this man shouldn't own weapons, but the state denied him a handgun license, presumably a failed background check (criminal history, mental health history?).... Back that with data of how low the criminal incident rates are among handgun licensees and the fact that this man was stopped by a "good guy with a gun" and then watch the Brady bunch and the Everytown Bloombergers squirm.

Wow.... I wonder if the families of the victims will have a nice lawsuit case against the USAF for not reporting.

Jose_in_Dallas wrote:
Sorry if I'm going off topic here and please let me know if I should post this elsewhere. I attend a Catholic church in the DFW Area and had a question regarding the posting of the 30.06 and 30.07 signs. The main entrance to the church does not have any signage while one side door has a 30.07 and one of the others (on the opposite side of the church) has a 30.06. Even though I know of the 30.06 sign, I've always gone through the entrance that has the 30.07 sign.

My question is am I violating anything by knowing about the 30.06 sign by entering in the entrance with the 30.07 sign? I have always carried concealed while at church but have always been concerned about brushing against someone and having them "feel" my carrying. It's my understanding that the signs have to be both posted on all entrances for it to be "legal".

There is no requirement that 30.06 be posted at every entrance (that nuance only applies to 30.07, unfortunately). It simply must be conspicuously posted. If you have seen the sign, then you have been effectively notified.

CoffeeNut wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Given the type of separation from the military, wouldn't it be illegal for him to own a gun?

If he was actually convicted at the Court Martial, which it sounds like he was, then I do believe it is illegal. A court martial conviction is the same as a felony conviction.

it's more complicated than just courts martial...
Better description here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php ... post670726

There are 3 levels; summary, special, and general. Summary is analogous to misdemeanor, special can be analogous to either, general is analogous to a felony. The likeness is based on what crimes are generally heard in each court, and the possible length of imprisonment for each charge under the UCMJ (federal criminal code, and most states, regard anything with possible confinement over 1 year as a felony).

However, they aren't actually a felony as they're a strictly military charge, not a criminal charge in a civilian court: the UCMJ does not make a distinction, definition, or any mention of misdemeanor or felony.