Waffle House shooting, at least 4 killed

[Hutch Starskey]

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.


.

They did their job. There is no federal law regarding the removal of guns. The father did not.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

There is federal law, see post 844.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

They did their job. There is no federal law regarding the removal of guns. The father did not.

Of course there is, they can take your guns when you become a prohibited person.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.


.

They did their job. There is no federal law regarding the removal of guns. The father did not.

Of course there is, they can take your guns when you become a prohibited person.


.

Post it up.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

They did their job. There is no federal law regarding the removal of guns. The father did not.

Of course there is, they can take your guns when you become a prohibited person.


.

Post it up.

I already told ya, see post 844.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

There is federal law, see post 844.


.

There is no federal law in post 844 or anywhere else.

Post it up.


The fact remains, the father, knowing his son's history, repeatedly gave the guns back to his son despite the recommendations of LE. He is culpable. Period.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.


.

They did their job. There is no federal law regarding the removal of guns. The father did not.

Of course there is, they can take your guns when you become a prohibited person.


.

Post it up.

I already told ya, see post 844.


.

Nothing there. Post it.

 

[OKTexas]

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


.

They did their job. There is no federal law regarding the removal of guns. The father did not.

Of course there is, they can take your guns when you become a prohibited person.


.

Post it up.

I already told ya, see post 844.


.

Nothing there. Post it.

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They did their job. There is no federal law regarding the removal of guns. The father did not.

Of course there is, they can take your guns when you become a prohibited person.


.

Post it up.

I already told ya, see post 844.


.

Nothing there. Post it.

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

 

[OKTexas]

Of course there is, they can take your guns when you become a prohibited person.


.

Post it up.

I already told ya, see post 844.


.

Nothing there. Post it.

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

 

[2aguy]

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


.

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.....

 

[OKTexas]

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


.

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.....

Yep, they've never shied away form arbitrary government power as long as it supports their agenda. The Constitution and the courts usually take a pretty dim view of it though.


.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Yes..thanks...I now see the narrative posted by 2aguy is the wording from the actual link. He used blue colored type instead of quotes and that caused me to think those were his own words. Ok...so his post was an update.
Now moving on.... Is the father culpable?
I say yes since he admitted to giving firearms to a person he knew had mental problems. Looking through the lens of Tennesee law, the father's culpability can be attatched to the revocation of his son's FOID in illinios. As i posted earlier, revocation of the right to bear arms is not a trifling matter to be taken lightly. A court order would have to be issued
for cause. And within that limited gray area this layman (me) believes that court orders are tantamount to adjudication. If I am right,
Tennesee law was violated since it is stated therein that the state law applies to anyone subject to the provisions of USC title 18: 922g.

.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.


.

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.

 

[JQPublic1]

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."

Do you fear the Hells Angels when you encounter a gaggle of them anywhere...even in the lobby of a plush hotel?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Post it up.

I already told ya, see post 844.


.

Nothing there. Post it.

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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


.

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.

 

[JQPublic1]

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


.

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.

 

[kaz]

You obviously didn't read the discussion

I did, dope. I even told you what to look for.

You pointed to one quote. You took that one quote, found it sufficient to spin how you wanted to read it and left. None of the rest of the conversation supports your claim. No, you didn't read it

There is no spin. There's only one way to take his meaning, dope.

No, there are two ways.

1) Blacks are a problem

2) Black murder rates are a problem.

The second is true unless you're claiming that facts are racist. Nothing in his posts after that supported the first one, only the second.

Your justification for the first one is that's what you want him to have meant. He has 4K posts and I only read about 20 of them. So find more than one

It's about race. That was the first post to mention race in the thread. That was the point, dope.

Yet you can't point to a single other post that he wrote that confirms that while he immediately followed up that quote with a statement about black murder rates. Facts aren't racist, homey.

Here's what happened. He wrote a post that I wouldn't have phrased that way but isn't definitive.

kaz: I wanted to know if it was racist. So I read the rest of the conversation and saw nothing to back up racism

HutchStarsky: You wanted to make the case he's racist. You decided the post was close enough and stopped satisfied you'd achieved your objective.

I don't know if you're racist or not, but you have no problem supporting policies like open borders, government dependency and minimum wage that are devastating the black community. But you just go and word parse your rationale

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

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.


.