Judge: Air Force mostly at fault in 2017 Texas church attack

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By PAUL J. WEBER

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Air Force is mostly responsible for a former serviceman killing more than two dozen people at a Texas church in 2017 because it failed to submit his criminal history into a database, which should have prevented him from purchasing firearms.

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez in San Antonio wrote in a ruling signed Wednesday that the Air Force was “60% responsible” for the deaths and injuries at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. The attack remains the worst mass shooting in Texas history.

Devin Kelley had served nearly five years in the Air Force before being discharged in 2014 for bad conduct, after he was convicted of assaulting a former wife and stepson, cracking the child’s skull. The Air Force has publicly acknowledged that the felony conviction for domestic violence, had it been put into the FBI database, could have prevented Kelley from buying guns from licensed firearms dealers, and also from possessing body armor.

“Its failure proximately caused the deaths and injuries of Plaintiffs at the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church,” Rodriguez wrote.



FILE - In this Nov. 12, 2017 file photo, a memorial for the victims of the shooting at Sutherland Springs Baptist Church includes 26 white chairs, each painted with a cross and and rose and placed in the sanctuary, in Sutherland Springs, Texas. A federal judge ruled Wednesday, July 7, 2021, the U.S. Air Force was "60% responsible" for the attack at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs because it failed to submit Devin Kelley's criminal history into a database, which should have prevented the gunman from purchasing the weapon used in the attack. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/texas-religion-shootings-bf5d07c321325bbec407dd39917e0304

[getagrip_already]

1. I doubt it.....

In TX, it is easier to buy a gun than a tank of gas. Felons can buy them from private sellers without any background checks.

Is the AF at fault? Yes, they should have followed procedure and added the convictions. Would it have stopped an unstable gun humper from getting a weopon and shotting up a church? Nope. The state of TX is equally to blame here.

[Sancho]

2. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

For those who want to argue legality, please reference: The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman

[Phoenix61]

5. You are consistent if nothing else.

The second amendment was for a militia. You can twist that anyway you want and post links to sources who also twist it but it doesn’t change what the intent of that amendment was.

[Sancho]

6. Then you should read the scholarly history...

...and there are many, many references in the history that I cite, so I provided one overview that leads to any examination that you wish.

Nothing in the "license" that I suggest is illegal, and the idea already exists in some form or other in one state or another.

It's a matter of willingness and degree. It has nothing to do with militia or not.

Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Waldman

Michael A. Waldman is an American attorney and political advisor serving as the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute.[1] Waldman has led the center since 2005.[2]

Prior to his government service, Waldman was the executive director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, then the capital's largest consumer lobbying office (1989–92).[5] He was a Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government (2001–03), teaching courses on political reform, public leadership and communications.[6] He was a partner in a litigation law firm in New York City and Washington, D.C.

Waldman appears frequently on television and radio to discuss public policy, the presidency and the law. Appearances include Good Morning America; PBS Newshour, CBS Evening News; the O'Reilly Factor; Nightline; 60 Minutes; Hardball with Chris Matthews; CNN's Crossfire; the Dylan Ratigan Show; color commentary on NBC (State of the Union) and ABC (Obama inaugural); NPR's Morning Edition; All Things Considered; Fresh Air; Diane Rehm; The Colbert Report; and many other programs. He writes frequently for publications including The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Slate and Democracy.

[msfiddlestix]

9. The definition of Militias in context of the times is exceedingly ignored in the current debate

Allow me to rephrase this point. The context of the term Militias at the time the 2nd Amendment had been drafted, is not nearly the reality of today. For the past two centuries, we have had legally in place, a well organized, regulated militias generally referred to as Law Enforcement Agencies and the Military.

It is my opinion, that the term "Militias" has been exploited or twisted bent and distorted greatly to support the theory that groups of individuals decidedly intending to overthrow our government by any means necessary or use of armed force, is constitutionally protected. The term militia has been used as a cudgel to argue this lame and woefully dishonest held view by the courts and lawmakers is beyond appalling and abhorrent.

[MarcA]

7. Thank you. Worth repeating constantly. Especially like #5. n/t

[IronLionZion]

3. There are plenty of problems with the background check systems and processes

and GOP/NRA block any attempts at improving it. Plenty of people buy guns who should have failed checks.

[TexasBushwhacker]

8. The problem is the default answer is to allow the gun purchase

The FBI's NICS system approves or denies the gun purchase on the spot 90% of the time. But if it isn't instantaneous, the system only has 3 business days to return a definitive answer. If, for some reason, it's delayed more than 3 business days, the purchase is allowed. That's how Dylann Roof was able to purchase a firearm even though he was on probation.

[DallasNE]

4. The Logic Here Opens Other Doors

If inaction can create culpability, like here, then words of encouragement (fight like hell) could also create culpability for an event like 1/6. Just saying.