WaGuns.org

Guns4Liberty wrote:

mislabeled wrote:It's worth pointing out that the guy who lied on the 4473 is not the one who used the gun in a crime. We're all ready to pounce on him but, had his son not been a monster, no one would ever be the wiser and no harm may have ever come from that firearm sitting in his house. Saying, "See! This is why terrible things happen!" is a little far reaching.

If the dad was the one pulling the trigger that day in the cafeteria, it would be another story. But he wasn't. Yes, his possession of the gun was a crime, but the link being drawn between the two events isn't quite the straight line it's being made out to be. I don't want the culpability of the son to be mitigated as a result of the father's actions. The son is the actual killer here.

Both the father and the son committed crimes, but they were separate crimes. The first enabled the second, but that doesn't mean the second wouldn't have been committed without the first.

We need a Plus 2 smiley.

Father convicted

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/m ... /73056878/

594 would have stopped the guns from doing the crime.

Pablo wrote:594 would have stopped the guns from doing the crime.

Thankfully 594 will no longer be needed once we all can run society on pixie dust and Leprechaun tears. Statists seem to think we're getting close.

ANZAC wrote:Father convicted

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/m ... /73056878/

GOOD! He should have gotten more time than 18 months though.

Another Billy Gates success story?

Oleman wrote:Another Billy Gates success story?

about as successful as the Windows phone.

ANZAC wrote:Father convicted

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/m ... /73056878/

In spite of John Henry Browne's arguments. Wonder who picked up this peacock's tab, the tribe?

Hopefully the judge will sentence him on each of the offenses and order them served consecutively. 18 U.S. Code § 1001 calls for 5 years imprisonment on conviction and he was convicted on 6 charges. Not sure why the 10 year number is being tossed around unless he bought all the firearms in two batches and only had to fill out two 4473's.

No, this dude didn't shoot up the school but if all had been following the law, he wouldn't have had the firearm his son used.

Unfortunately there's the mentality that "your laws don't apply to us here on the 'res' among the Tulalip's.

Massivedesign wrote:

ANZAC wrote:Father convicted

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/m ... /73056878/

GOOD! He should have gotten more time than 18 months though.

That's just JHB talking. The Judge hasn't passed sentence yet.

illegally owning firearms

at least they didn't call the firearms illegal, just his possession of them.

mislabeled wrote: The son is the actual killer here.

I'm not sure about this particular high school (Marysville-Mt.Pilchuck) but a lot of cues were either missed or ignored on this kid going off the rails.

The vast majority of school districts in WA (and other states) now have a system in place that allows anyone--friend, neighbour, family member, whatever--to notify the school anonymously, via email or text, of any posting on social media or of any other anomalous behaviour on the part of a student.

And those emails and texts don't just get dropped into the round file--each one is reviewed by an administrator of the school in question (read: principal or assistant principal) and is passed on to the SRO (commissioned police officer or deputy) assigned to the school for additional review if necessary. I don't know if the school had this system in place at the time of the shootings, I'm sure that they must now.

Glad the feds are taking this one. Each and every school shooting is a tragedy, whether the victim count is one or 27, and when you have a "special status" individual involved, it makes an objective review of findings even more difficult.

ETA: Glad to see that the father was convicted, but as someone else pointed out, it's quite likely that the shooter would have obtained a firearm by other means either way. It just would have been a little more difficult.

I'm totally surprise that you folks think his conviction is a good thing. Yes he bears some responsibility for the murders, he should have kept the gun out of his son's hands. But that is NOT what he's being convicted for. He's being convicted under a completely unconstitutional law that removes a persons gun rights without due process and conviction. Supposedly a domestic violence restraining order(DVRO) was placed on him in 2002 and this makes his possession of firearms a crime, that is F'd up.

To start with, the law itself removing rights without due process is clearly unconstitutional. And based on a DVRO what somehow by some miracle that I haven't seen anyone explain is still in effect after 12 years. A DVRO it's completely possible if not likley he had no idea about and a law he likely didn't know existed in particular regarding it's application on the reservation. The laws like this and there application to the reservation is complicated. It really is highly unlikely that he was properly served and notified, it would have required an almost supernatural level of cooperation between local(county), federal, and tribal police.

Sure charge and convict him with giving a handgun to a minor, sue him out of financial existence. But not this unconstitutional legal loophole bull shit.

they needed a scapegoat as with everything.

I guess I don't see what everyone else does, so enlighten me.

How by any reason is he partly responsible for the murders, at all, by any account?
Whether or not he had legally, or illegally obtained weapons, he didn't pull the trigger.

The kid was a nut case, plain and simple. There is no reason or excuse, and unfortunately he should have ate a bullet before taking others with him.

What if your neighbor kid, who knew you had guns, and you even taught him how to shoot, broke into your house.
And in the process of that found your sleepy time gun under your matress, then goes to school and shoots up the place...
You want to be held partially responsible? Because since you didn't lock it up in fort Knox, it was available.

The dad should have his ass handed to him for obtaining weapons illegally. The sentence should have no emotional or consideration towards the school murders. The dad did not pull the trigger, the person that robs you and steals your gun to kill someone, does not make you guilty of supplying that weapon.

I understand the difference between a robbery and a weapon available in your own home, nonetheless, the child obtained a weapon and killed. How he obtained it is irrelevant, what the nut case did to obtain and kill was illegal.

Kip Kinkel murdered his parents with stolen gun before going to his high school and opening fire in the cafeteria.

If a boy is "off"--and unfortunately, the vast majority of the school shootings are carried out by boys--their first victims are likely to be their parent(s) (see: Sandy Hook).

Sure, the parents in both cases may have missed clues about the child's state of mind (see: Columbine), mostly because no one wants to believe that their own child would shoot them in the back of the head, as Kinkel did his father, but others in the community--students, teachers, whatever--have, until recently, been reluctant to take action to prevent these tragedies. Thus the anonymous reporting systems that many districts are implementing.

FTR, SRO's in Bellevue now carry, in their vehicles, what is essentially SWAT gear. Think gas mask, huge canisters of CS/OC gas, riot shield, an AR-15 with approximately 20 magazines, maybe more. Certainly when she opened the trunk of her SUV to show Jacob and Sam what she had, it appeared that she was ready for a full-on attack. They drive SUV's but the vehicles are not equipped to carry arrestees--the SUV's are literally crammed with gear. Ever since Columbine, PD's are more and more gravitating to engaging the shooter ASAP instead of waiting for the building to clear.

The SRO (a petite woman who I am 100% sure could kick my arse) at my son's school gave him a ride home the other day, as it's on her way, we started talking guns and then I said, Well, they always go after the principal and the SRO first. Her response? "They'd have to find me before I found them, and when we met, I'd be greeting them with these (indicating the AR-15 and her sidearm)".