Waffle House shooting, at least 4 killed

[JQPublic1]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

I think the culpabity of the father might warrant mitigation if the measures he took to secure the weapons were forcefully breeched. But. That scenario still does not rise to the level of "giving" or "returning" the weapons to his son.

The articles posted inbue a sense that the dad willfully rearmed his crazy son in defiance of authority. Without more evidence, I'm not going to allow the media to lead me by the nose like that. I support less speculation and more fact. I also read with the "third eye."

 

[JQPublic1]

At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

Revocation of a persons FOID (Firearms owner's identification card) in illinios requires a court order. The police cannot arbitrarily confiscate weapons or deny gun possession to cizens of any state without due process or court adjudication. So, officers acting on behalf of a county or state court came to remove the son's weapons. I assume a warrant was presented to effect the confiscation but you did not mention that. Nether was a clue given in your long post to reveal the courts justification for depriving
the son access to his weapons. Upon what legal premise was the deprival of the son's constitutional right to bear arms based? Somewhere a record exists showing probable cause: and I suspect the pc centered on the son's observed mental state as evaluated by ...whom? The arresting officers? Are the officers qualified to mske that determination without
professional oversight by psychologists or psychiatrists?

Revoked FOID Card for Order of Protection Illinois | State Police

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession.

On what legal grounds If no mental evaluation was on record? Stay with me..I'm trying to establish court adjudication takibg place somewhere in the background. I have an agenda to fulfill if i can establish adjudication.
Next...

Was that due process? The 5th and 14th Ammendments to the Constitution prohibit local governments depriving citizens of life, liberty and/or property without due process.

Moving on....

Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

Isit a good idea to release firearms to anyone other than the registered owner? Even relatives? Obviously there was no warrant or specific court order for revocation of the son's FOID. and subsequent intended confiscation.

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

If there was an adjudication by a court in any state or US territory , no matter how trivial, that made a revocation of firearm ownership possible based on mental instability, Tennessee law could still apply. Note the wording of the law.

Tennessee

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1351.

The following are eligibility requirements for obtaining a handgun carry permit and the application shall require the applicant to disclose and conform compliance with, under oath, the following information concerning the applicant and the eligibility requirements:

That the applicant has not been adjudicated as a mental defective, has not been judicially committed to or hospitalized in a mental institution, has not had a court appoint a conservator for the applicant by reason of mental illness, developmental disability or other mental incapacity, and has not, within seven years from the date of application, been found by a court to pose an immediate substantial likelihood of serious harm because of the mental illness.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily

But if the revocation of his FOID card in Ill.was an adjudication based on mental stability, the tennessee law would apply too as the tennessee gun law emanates from US code.
A necessity that insures national cohesion
or consistency in upholding public safety when mentally ill people move from state to state.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-11-202

 

[JQPublic1]

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.


.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.


.

Agreed! So why did they come to take his guns? Who authorized that?

 

[JQPublic1]

The US Code from which most of the prohibitions instate gun laws emanate:

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Well, there aren't many locks that can withstand bolt cutters, diamond bit drills or crowbars. But I think some one has. Updated the article where the aurhorities believed the father gave him the guns. Now it seems there is an admission according to 2Aguy, even though he didn' post a link for verification.

 

[K9Buck]

And you seem to have a fear of black people.

Considering their inordinate amount of violence, you'd be a fool not to fear them. Hell, even Jesse Jackson agrees with me. LOL.

My 'implicit bias' against black people

As the Rev. Jesse Jackson admitted back in the 1980s, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps . . . then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

 

[Bush92]

Boy...this bastard really hated Waffle House. What happened? His eggs cold? Only one slice of toast? I mean, why Waffle House?

 

[K9Buck]

You'd be prosecuted. That is not how it is done. We have judges and juries in this nation.

A gunman in Texas murdered 26 people in a church. He fled and was pursued by a citizen who ended up shooting the mass murderer. If what you say is true, why wasn't that Texas citizen charged? Cue the kunt act.

Gunman Kills at Least 26 in Attack on Rural Texas Church

 

[Bush92]

Hope there is not a copycat shooting at an IHOP?

 

[K9Buck]

Yep. It is hard for dummies to understand, I know. But that's the way it has to be. We have laws. Even mass shooters have rights.

So you favor prosecuting the Texas hero that PURSUED a FLEEING mass murderer and shot him, right kunt? LOL!

 

[KissMy]

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.

.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.
.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.
.

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

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

I think the culpabity of the father might warrant mitigation if the measures he took to secure the weapons were forcefully breeched. But. That scenario still does not rise to the level of "giving" or "returning" the weapons to his son.

The articles posted inbue a sense that the dad willfully rearmed his crazy son in defiance of authority. Without more evidence, I'm not going to allow the media to lead me by the nose like that. I support less speculation and more fact. I also read with the "third eye."

The father already admitted to returning his son's guns.
Even if he hadn't, it's not likely the son would have had access to them if they were properly secured or otherwise disabled.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Well, there aren't many locks that can withstand bolt cutters, diamond bit drills or crowbars. But I think some one has. Updated the article where the aurhorities believed the father gave him the guns. Now it seems there is an admission according to 2Aguy, even though he didn' post a link for verification.

It's been posted in this thread. To you specifically I believe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.

.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.
.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.
.

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

No doubt!

The problem is glaringly obvious in this case yet they continue to argue for unfettered access for all in every case.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.


.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.


.

Agreed! So why did they come to take his guns? Who authorized that?

From what I understand the local sheriff took the guns at the FBIs request. I just don't understand the basis for that request, he wasn't charged or committed.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.

.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.
.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.
.

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


.

 

[OKTexas]

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

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.


.

 

[OKTexas]

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.
.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.
.

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

No doubt!

The problem is glaringly obvious in this case yet they continue to argue for unfettered access for all in every case.

You're a liar, we just want LE to do their freaking job. Trying to shortcut due process doesn't cut it.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

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.


.

It's not a legal term, dope.

cul·pa·bil·i·ty
ˌkəlpəˈbilədē/
noun

1. responsibility for a fault or wrong; blame.

Federal law regarding removal of guns from someone's custody.