![Trading Places: Trump and Nieto Announce NAFTA Agreement [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/TrumpMexicanFlag.jpg)
![Jacksonville Shooter Bought Guns Legally Despite Mental Health Issues [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jacksonville-c-1-1.jpg)
Within minutes of the news that someone opened fire at the Madden 19 tournament in Jacksonville, FL the gun control zealots started blaming the NRA once again. But of course, their narrative is chock full of holes. Why? Because the Jacksonville shooter was able to purchase BOTH weapons legally, in spite of the fact that he had been hospitalized TWICE for mental health issues.
Court records obtained by The Associated Press show that Katz had been hospitalized for mental illness.
Divorce filings from his parents say that as a teenager he was twice hospitalized in psychiatric facilities and that he was prescribed anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications.
The records show Katz’s parents disagreed deeply on how to care for their troubled son. Katz’s father claimed his estranged wife was exaggerating symptoms of mental illness as part of the couple’s long-running and acrimonious custody battle. They divorced in 2007.
Wait a minute. Here’s a disturbed individual with a documented history of mental illness and he was still able to purchase two handguns legally?
As noted above, the shooter had two guns with him, a .45 and a .9mm plus extra ammunition. However, did he purchase both at the same time? No.
According to the Giffords Law Center, “Maryland prohibits any person from purchasing more than one handgun or assault weapon within a 30-day period.”
So, with the knowledge that the shooter purchased the guns legally, it would seem like he purchased one gun, waited a month and then purchased the other
In other words, he passed state and federal background checks and thus was able to purchase both weapons LEGALLY.
This news hasn’t stopped any of the usual suspects from stepping on gun-control rakes.
I’m heartbroken for Jacksonville. No community should have to suffer from such senseless gun violence. When will Congress have the courage to stand up to the NRA and pass meaningful reforms to help prevent these shootings in America?
— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) August 27, 2018
First of all, how come he’s not saying anything about the constant deaths in Chicago by guns every single weekend? Never mind, he and Rahm are pals so that’s different don’tcha know. Secondly, it was already known that shooter hadn’t bought guns in Florida.
The murderer lived in Maryland which had UBCs, mag restrictions, registration, qualification license, was may-issue, red flag laws, and the atrocity was committed in a gun-free zone. His purchase in FL would be illegal. What law would you propose, Senator? https://t.co/DDfoyhbCPF
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 27, 2018
Oh yeah, THAT.
Meanwhile, after the news conference yesterday, Fred Guttenberg (whose daughter Jaime was killed by the Parkland shooter), tweeted this:
Latest reports are the Jacksonville shooter purchased his weapons legally in Maryland despite history of hospitalization for mental illness. Yes, we need to address mental illness (not take money away Betsy Devos), but we also need gun reform. This again was PREVENTABLE!!!
— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) August 28, 2018
He gets two things correct – three really.
However, Betsy Devos has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. How could or can the Dept. of Education stop someone from using legal means to purchase a gun? Answer is, they can’t. Furthermore, in light of the mental illness issues the Jacksonville shooter had along with two hospitalizations that we know of and multiple prescriptions for anti-psychotic medications; Fred and everyone else should be asking THIS question.
WHY wasn’t the shooter’s name entered into the appropriate databases given his diagnosis?
Since it wasn’t, not a single Maryland or federal law would’ve seen a red flag of any kind.
If the murderer was involuntarily committed and/or adjudicated mentally unfit he is a prohibited possessor: https://t.co/gTvf9QzItT . If this is the case, how, with MD’s strict gun control, did he obtain a handgun? https://t.co/NZZtkzpq1k
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 27, 2018
Could this shooting have been prevented? Very possibly. You see, in Maryland, family members have some interesting latitude regarding someone who is dealing with mental health issues. It’s called an Extreme Risk Protective Order.
“The law, called an Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) law, allows a law enforcement officer, family member, dating partner, mental health professional, or health officer to file a petition demonstrating to a judge that an individual poses a danger to himself, herself, or others.”
Was an ERPO applicable in the shooter’s case at anytime over these last few years? That’s a question the mental health professionals involved in his care along with the family may have an answer for.
One thing is for certain. Every single current gun law on the books was followed correctly. Passing new gun control laws is not a solution, and would not have prevented this attack given what we are finding out about the shooter’s personal history.
Jim says: The mental health of a person attempting to purchase firearms should be a factor to be considered before granting permission to buy and own guns – if declared to authorities. Clearly this was not a consideration with this young man and quite a number of people – family and professionals – knew he was unwell and potentially unstable. Nor was it back in 1996 here in Australia when 35 people were killed by a young man who had a known history of treatment by a psychiatrist due to displaying symptoms from late childhood of Conduct Disorder and who had an IQ of 64. When I read of this latest incident I did wonder about the man having a psychiatric issue.
GWB says: While I generally agree with you, it won’t stop this stuff if we keep treating mental illness as something that’s no big deal. (Hell, some of it we treat as a “lifestyle difference”.)
We have to be able to lock up some small number of people until they’re well – or, at least, well enough they won’t harm anyone. And that does NOT mean “loaded up on strong medications that they can easily stop taking”.
The biggest thing to realize is that we can’t stop every single bad thing in the world. You don’t get out of life alive. Instead of bubble-wrapping everyone, teach them to cope and press on despite all the crap of life. THEN you might truly diminish the other issues.
Jim says: “We have to be able to lock up some small number of people until they’re well – or, at least, well enough they won’t harm anyone.”
I do agree with involuntary psychiatric institutionalisation for some cases. The problem is that the civil liberty ‘pendulum’ has swung so far in recent decades as part of the de-institutionalisation movement that the majority are being put at risk by people who would have been well-cared for and controlled [for their own benefit and the benefit of society in general] in closed settings. The old institutions were generally pretty bad places, but there is a place for ”locked” treatment units and an honest acceptance that all the love in the world cannot cure some people presenting with severe mental conditions and often very dangerous behaviour. Unfortunately the social justice mob would not come at, what they call, infringing the Rights of the mentally ill – through imposing mandatory treatment for the good of all. I know from working with disturbed people that some are simply not mentally fit to operate safely in open society; that’s why some of my clients are in locked units and that’s where they will stay until they die. As you wrote ”The biggest thing to realize is that we can’t stop every single bad thing in the world.” Nor can we give every person a perfect life. When it comes to certain people presenting dangerously to the majority then their right to access society really has to be constrained to some degree.
GWB says: Concur. Well said.
GWB says: In other words, he passed state and federal background checks and thus was able to purchase both weapons LEGALLY TWICE.
FIFY
Secondly, it was already known that shooter hadn’t bought guns in Florida.
That didn’t stop someone from doing a bit on the lax gun laws in FL, as related to the shooting. Dana Loesch (and a bunch of others) took him to task over that one.
(not take money away Betsy Devos)
*facepalm* Total misdirection.
new gun control laws … would not have prevented this attack
Nor any of the attacks since SandyHook, really.
But, you know what MIGHT have stopped this mass shooting? A good guy with a gun right there (security, cop, or a regularly armed citizen). That – instead of the gun-free zone he walked into.
GWB says: (I really should have put “lax” in scare quotes. They aren’t lax in FL, nor anywhere else, really.)
Steve says: The problem is, do we deny individuals the right to protect themselves because they are going through a rough patch in life, simply because they need medication due to the temporary stresses of surviving in today’s world? Is it right to deprive someone of their constitutionally guaranteed right to “keep and bear arms” simply because they have been prescribed medication that actually helps them to make decisions in a rational manner? And who gets to decide which individuals are allowed to keep their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and who will be denied?
I see a slippery slope in all of this…..
GWB says: I don’t have as much of a problem with it if it’s adjudicated in a court of law.
But, it’s also a good reason to talk about institutionalization: if you put someone away, you’re already removing their rights (ostensibly for good cause), and preventing their access to arms is part of that. I really do believe that would help with a great many of our problems.
(Of course, we’d have to re-build all those FEMA camps for the folks driven absolutely bat-guano crazy by an orange-tinged reality show hotel mogul. They definitely should never be allowed anything more dangerous than a styrofoam rock.)
(I keed! I keed! There are no FEMA camps.)
Steve says: Unfortunately, if you read a 4473 form, (the form you must fill out in order to purchase a firearm from a federally lisenced dealer) you will see that .gov asks if ANY person of authority has determined that you are a danger to yourself or others. They CURRENTLY do not limit authority to a court of law. The ATF has pretty much already put one foot on a slippery slope and the other on a banana peel!
9 Comments