Waffle House shooting, at least 4 killed

[JQPublic1]

Just more proof you & the NRA want crazies & terrorist to have guns!

Yep, you're crashing and burning alright. LMAO

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.[1]

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia


.

See...there you go....the left wingers don't care about pieces of paper that were written on by old white guys over 200 years ago......they just get to say how things are and if you don't do what they say they will lie, cheat and steal to get the power to punish you for it.....

When did I say that, dope? I said there needed to be a federal law that would have covered this case. There is not.

There is a federal law that highlights a list of people prohibited from possessing firearms.
I posted a copy of the law in post #844. But since I consider you a friend I'll give you a better link:

Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

I ask that you direct your attention to
this excerpt from the USC.

"The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
  
  
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
  
  
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
  
  
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  
  
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
  
  
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 992(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition"

I invite you to observe the highlighted blue and underlined phrase. That phrase is also included in the Tennessee gun statue . note also, if you care to look it up, that Title 18 USC 922 is duly referenced there. If adjudicon can be established citing mental instability in regards to the revocation of the son's FOID card , then the father cannot escape liability for returning the guns to his son who he knew was mentally challenged. Adjudication forms the bridge that connects federal law to the Tennesee state law in framing a prosecutorial discretion in either venue, federal or state.

Thank you for the post but I already read it.

Nothing here applies to the shooter at all.
He had not been, as most people aren't, adjudicated as a mental defective. Did any court even have the authority or standing under their guidelines to involuntarily commit the shooter for psychological asssessment over his previous disturbances? Obviously, until or if at all that were done, he still has rights to his guns.

Obviously there should be some sort of new category added to the law that allows for temorary confiscation to create a "cool down period" wherein the subject can be evaluated, treated if necessary and work to get their shit together and meet the standards set for the return of their guns. Also, if the guns remain in the custody of a family member, they should be criminally liable if they arent properly secured.

That's all I'm saying.

Thanks for your clear civil narrative old friend.
I think we tacitly agree on most aspects of the peripheral questions around the father's culpability. But that culpability extends well beyond the father. I don't know how the son got the weapons in tbe first place but we do know he was able to get an FOID card. Obviously the background checks didn't turn up any red flags nor did the issuing authorities notice any aberrant behavior when he appeared in person to take a photo and sign the paperwork. I'm amazed. Surely, this murderer had shown some signs of mental instability that. would have got him tagged
as a person who should be prohibited from owning firearms. But that never happened.

Does. 18 USC 922g apply? I think we both agree the federal law prevails in determining
the rules for deciding whether the father is . or is not culpable for puting confiscated weapons and ammo back in the hands of a deranged person no matter in which state the deed happened.. But the key to charging the father and making it stick rests precariously on a slippery slope. We both agree that adjudication for the son's mental illness must be applied to ensnare the father. Without that crucial adjudication we run the risk of violating due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.

But let's take another look at 2aguy's update.
If i recall correctly, there were mental evaluations involved prior to the shooting but somehow the suspect managed to evade adjudication for mental illness. He won't get away with murder but the father might not be held liable if he returned the son's weapons to him in Tennessee. He would be liable if only one adjudication for mental illness had occured when it should have regadless of jusisdiction.




The point you made concerning securing the weapons is moot since an updated article indicates the father admitted he gave the weapons back to his son.

Otherwise we agree.

 

[JQPublic1]

I never said anything about legality. I said he was culpable.

This case shows very clearly why this must be a federal law rather than a state matter.

You have yet to present any case for his "culpability" because it is a legal term. There is federal law, it appears to have been followed.


.

Ostensibly, it does appear that way. But I'm wrestling with the probable cause for weapon confiscation and how adjudication is involved in that process...if at all. Even a temporary confiscation is subject to due process. My point being that if a revoked FOID was based on mental instability as assessed by competent authority, that would satisfy the application of federal, illinois and Tennessee law...since each jurisdiction is connected via USC 18:922g. The rickety wheels of my premise turns upon the ambiguous interpretation of the term Adjudication, but, I may still arrive at my destination even if i have to repair my wheels along the way.

The way I've heard it, the local sheriff revoked the FOID simply because the FBI asked them to. Nothing has been made public more than that. That is not due process.


.

BINGO!...looks like a civil right's violation to me. Not that I'm siding with the killer or his father..I'm just being real.

Yes, for good cause though. That's why I said there needs to be a category in the law that fits these people who have not been adjudicated but are still a threat.

But unfortunately, the Constitution stands in the way. Although Illiniois certainly has no qualms about revoking your FOID and confiscating weapons without adjudication.