Private Sale: Odessa Shooter

[Dash Riprock]

If that were true, then they have him in custody. Why stay quiet about it now? They certainly were quick to point to a guy in Lubbock as the source.

Yeah, that seems like a stretch to me. I can't imagine they had tabs on the seller before the shooting. But who knows?

Another thing I've been wondering is if the reports are true and he'd been deemed mentally unfit or whatever and thus prohibited from purchasing a firearm, then wasn't he also prohibited from owning firearms? And if so, why did the Odessa police/sheriff not confiscate them at some point? There were reports that they'd had several calls about him shooting at his home erratically, and at least one time threatened a neighbor. I know there was one report that they couldn't find his house or something, but it sounded like the neighbors had called on him several times. Do the police not have access to the same mental health info in the NICS? If not, shouldn't they? Seems like that would be something to look at before UBC's.

The sudden radio silence on this story which happened to coincide with the push for UBC's from Patrick and others on the GOP side seems awfully strange to me. Something doesn't feel right.

 

[toddnjoyce]

It's all pretty fishy to me.

Me, too.

 

[Dash Riprock]

There are a couple of other scenarios that are just plausible enough like that and they all result in whatever agency is doing the investigation look like a complete clown show for not acting sooner, which might not be in the agency’s best interest to disclose.

Yeah, I thought about that too. We know in many of these things that the shooter was sending out all kinds of legitimate red flags and nothing was done. Could be something like that and the agency responsible is intentionally keeping things quiet hoping it will blow over.

 

[jrbfishn]

You mean the government, several of them, fucked up again?


Say it ain't so.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[TheDan]

Sometimes you make progress in one area and lose in another for a net gain.

I defined the sort of UBC I could tolerate in another thread. I would take it without complaint if I could get, in the same legislative package:

• Repeal the Hughes Amendment
• Pass the Hearing Protection Act
• Pass Universal Reciprocity, and
• Have another NFA amnesty exactly like the one in 1968.

The net result would be positive progress towards restoring 2A rights in this country. We wouldn't be giving an inch; in the aggregate, we'd be taking back several furlongs.

Does my position disqualify me from the #NotAnotherInch club?

I dunno... I think keeping personal property transfers private, and preventing a national registry is more important than machine guns and stamp-free suppressors.

Universal reciprocity is a constitutional issue and someone needs to get SCOTUS to rule it's covered under Article IV, Section 1. Taking the legislative route to this is a sure way to **** it up.

 

[Dash Riprock]

I dunno... I think keeping personal property transfers private, and preventing a national registry is more important than machine guns and stamp-free suppressors.

Universal reciprocity is a constitutional issue and someone needs to get SCOTUS to rule it's covered under Article IV, Section 1. Taking the legislative route to this is a sure way to **** it up.

Exactly. Even the universal reciprocity proposals that were being kicked around a couple of years ago didn't do all that much, since you still had to comply with the state's laws about where and how you carried. Great, they recognized your license to carry but they didn't allow anybody to carry anywhere, so so what?

 

[benenglish]

I think keeping personal property transfers private, and preventing a national registry is more important than

I think it's more important than almost anything in this arena. That's why the UBC I said I could accept preserves that privacy and could not be used to facilitate a national registry.

 

[Bobk]

UBC will be used as another way of “making” money for the federal government. The federal government needs more money just look at the national deficit.

Just remember anytime the government does something it is because it is their best interest and not yours.

 

[TheDan]

I think it's more important than almost anything in this arena. That's why the UBC I said I could accept preserves that privacy and could not be used to facilitate a national registry.

Can you explain how that's possible? Being able to run a trace on every transfer is a defacto registry.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Can you explain how that's possible? Being able to run a trace on every transfer is a defacto registry.

Background check does not equal 4473, if you think outside the box.

 

[benenglish]

Can you explain how that's possible? Being able to run a trace on every transfer is a defacto registry.

Background checks and firearms transfers can be (and, for private sales, should be) entirely divorced.

I didn't get into the mechanics but I gave the broad outlines of something I could live with here.

 

[easy rider]

I agree, but you know that's not even close to what they want.

 

[Renegade]

Can you explain how that's possible? Being able to run a trace on every transfer is a defacto registry.

You are not tracing anything, you are checking people for prior DQs. Of course as e-r said above that is not what they want.

 

[benenglish]

I agree, but you know that's not even close to what they want.

I know. But I'd sure like to choke 'em on their words. They say they want to check that buyers are eligible. I'd love to see how they'd backpedal if we offered them exactly that without the mechanisms for attacking firearms ownership.

 

[TheDan]

You are not tracing anything, you are checking people for prior DQs. Of course as e-r said above that is not what they want.

I was imagining there being a form filled out and submitted somewhere or retained like a 4473. They would at a minimum have to keep a record of who has had a background check run or else it would be completely unenforceable. If it's unenforceable then that's just the next thing they will "fix".

 

[benenglish]

They would at a minimum have to keep a record of who has had a background check run or else it would be completely unenforceable.

Why? The background check system I proposed would be wonderfully (theatrically, even) enforceable without any recordkeeping. All the ATF would have to do is have Special Agents pose as ineligible buyers. If someone sold to them, instant arrest in front of TV cameras. The antis could get those flashy arrests that make them feel like they're doing something. They could claim they're cracking down on gun crime. Us law-abiding gun owners wouldn't be tracked or interfered with in any substantial way.

Note I said "any substantial way." People could argue about that. However, the basics hold. We could give them universal background checks (on the people, not the guns) in a format that would actually produce arrests of people selling guns willy-nilly to folks they know or should know are ineligible. All the while, law-abiding gun owners wouldn't be hurt.

 

[Renegade]

Why? The background check system I proposed would be wonderfully (theatrically, even) enforceable without any recordkeeping. All the ATF would have to do is have Special Agents pose as ineligible buyers. If someone sold to them, instant arrest in front of TV cameras.

Yep, same way we enforce drug laws, buy/bust.

 

[easy rider]

I know. But I'd sure like to choke 'em on their words. They say they want to check that buyers are eligible. I'd love to see how they'd backpedal if we offered them exactly that without the mechanisms for attacking firearms ownership.

That's about like saying they should focus on the people using guns to kill people, and not the gun or where it came from. Makes sense, but that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Bobk]

Police feared Odessa shooter was planning attack - 8 years ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/p...attack-8-years-ago/ar-AAI0Vr4?ocid=spartandhp

Unfortunately, from CNN but this is the first anything new in awhile.

 

[Bobk]

So instead of making a new thread. Here is what the guy who sold the AR-15 plead guilty to:

Texas man who sold AR-15 rifle used in 2019 Midland-Odessa mass shooting pleads guilty to dealing firearms without license

Marcus Anthony Braziel, 45, pleaded guilty to one count of dealing firearms without a license and one count of subscribing to a false tax return.

www.yahoo.com