They know not what they do.

Be careful what you ask for.

A NICS denial (due to a felony conviction) is exclusively Federal jurisdiction.

Historically, there is little pursuit, even when the purchase attempt was by a violent felon. I used to track the numbers and the numbers were abysmal.

In this case, his denial was due to a restraining order. A state law violation recorded in the NICS is my guess. The Feds are not going to pursue that. They COULD, I suppose, but I doubt there are any violators of a restraining orders sitting in Club Fed. They simply record the RO and it triggers the denial when an attempt to purchase is submitted.

The question is, does the FBI notify the jurisdiction when someone subject to a DV protection order attempts to purchase? If so, then the jurisdiction where the order was granted needs to put out an APB and BOLO and prioritize a meeting with the violator and the judge that granted the order. My perception is that judges are typically not fond of DV orders they have issued being violated. In Arizona, a first time violation is punishable by up to 1 year in a cage. In the cases I've seen, the judge goes with 6 months the first time. Crazy woman's (R3V I hooked up with) oldest son had a gf that filed a DV on him. He violated. Went to her uncles house where she had moved to avoid said son (btw, he's aut, and you know you can't stop that) and got in a fight with the uncle in the front yard (which is a good thing, because if someone is trespassed on my property and shows up again, I'm popping a cap in their ass). They were still engaging when officers rolled up. Son was arrested and got 6 months. They released him at 2 months. It's been some years now and he hasn't re-violated, so that's good.

I think the problem here is, Shrek was picked up - and in spite of GOOD officers, the judge cut Shrek loose.

The guy was a whack job. The judge failed that poor woman, her family and friend - and the entire community.

I filed a DV once on a drug-addled neighbor that, in his hallucinatory delusion state, would continually knock on my door accusing me of moving shit in his yard, feeding his dog, spying on him (well, I was listening to his cordless phone via scanner), looking in his windows, etc;. My larger concern was the traffic and company that hung around. Druggies. The last time he knocked on my door, he said his dog had bad breath, and he accused me of feeding his dog. I told him to never come on my property again, that I'd had enough of him, I was filing a restraining order, that if I caught him on my property again I was going to kill him - and he better get some help. He was served within the next few days. He never violated the order, I'll give him that, and a few months later he moved. I got lucky. He got the message.

I'll admit, any time a female I know is fearful enough to get a restraining order, I visit the subject. I make sure they understand that if they violate the RO, the police will be their saviour and nothing to fear next to me. Make them know what it feels like as they think they might need an RO on me. He violates the RO, she tells me. I get her to contact him to reconcile. Pussy is the greatest bait ever made. He shows up. Aw shucks, I show up. Surprise, dingo. You were told. I specialize in teaching motherfuckers that think they have nothing to lose that they do have something to lose. And that their cowardly desire to inflict fear and submission on someone unable to adequately defend themselves is something that is easily brought to bear on them.

The judge in this case ignored this Shrek motherfuckers propensity. Some male in her life should have paid him a visit.

I never get angry, save for two circumstances.

Harm a woman, child or animal in front of me or have me learn of it.

Accuse me of something I didn't do.

Either of those occur and the subject will have my full attention until the situation is resolved to my satisfaction.

Anything else is simply a matter to sort out.

This poor woman and her children. This was completely avoidable.

Note the focus is "Where did he get the gun?"

Newsflash, you non thinking motherfuckers. The scumbag is always going to be able to get a gun. Or a knife. Or a container of flammable liquid.

It's the courts job to cage these animals.

And to ensure conditions where victims of threats are able to obtain the means to defend themselves.

Red flag laws aren't needed. They're just a tool intended to disarm firearm owners. The vast majority of these shooters demonstrate their intentions. Lock them the fuck up when they friction against a RO.

At least he irrigated his own skull.

Messages In This Thread