Aurora workplace shooter was set to be fired by company, police chief says

The real reason they're trying to drop this one is that the state of IL knew he was a felon.

They processed him for a FOID first, approved it, and allowed him to purchase a handgun.

Then they processed him for a CCW, found he was a felon, and denied his CCW.

Did they revoke his FOID, confiscate his firearm, and prosecute him for lying on his 4473 and his FOID as well as being a felon in possession of a handgun after denying his CCW?

Nope.

 

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I keep asking, they still haven't answered:
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

The left's argument: The government can't enforce the laws we have.

Conclusion: We need to take more of your freedom and give the government more power.

Also: We should put the government in charge of more stuff like your healthcare plan.

 

It appears IL did screw up.They sent him a letter asking him to voluntarily give up any firearms. As a felon, that's Federal law too. The fact is however, police (California excepted) don't normally seize firearms unless the guy is making trouble. As a felon, they had the right. Police though are actually ordinary people who don't go looking for trouble. It would not be the first time police have shown up at a bad guys place announced or unannounced and they end up getting shot. It might not seem like a good excuse for the cops but it's reality.

 

After the fact. If the background checks included finger print identification the murderer would not have his gun. It is only "after the fact" that he applied for a conceal-carry license was it discovered that he was a felon. "More laws" which include the simple addition of fingerprint identification in background check would stop future felons getting a gun in the same way as this man did.

 

If it was an illegal alien criminal that did the shooting, I can understand that they did not do those four things.

I don't believe that sanctuary "laws" apply to an American citizen, let alone a criminal black thug.

 

The state knew more than 4 years before the shooting the shooter had a gun, and the state did not take it from him.
Thus, this shooting happened because the state did not do its job.

You only have the Democrats to blame for this as they chose to not include fingerprinting for background checks.

I ask again:
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

So, say the cops were to come to his place to confiscate that gun. He may have had others. He tells the police, Oh, that gun. I lost it in a boating accident. Or, it was stolen. They could search his house without a warrant maybe but he then claims he is being harassed. You don't think he knows how to play the system?

 

Nothing here in any way changes the fact the state did not enforce the law.
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

There's a good plan.

Ask felons who lied to get a FOID and a firearm to bring their guns in when they have a chance.

Additionally, it should be noted that in order for him to have obtained a FOID, he had to commit a federal crime by lying on his 4473.

Something they failed to prosecute him for.

And yeah, taking guns away from the law abiding is probably easier, huh?

 

Ummm...Background checks ALREADY include finger print identification.

And, if you're purchasing a firearm, you're finger printed again when you pick up your purchase.

See the Ruger .357 magnum revolver in my avatar?

My Wife got me that one (And the shirt) for my birthday last month.

I just went through all the process (Except the FOID card, which is good for 5 years) for the third time within a year and at $35 a pop each time.

Have YOU bought a firearm recently? EVER???

 

Democrats are trying to pass a bill through Congress that will make it illegal to provide ICE with information on illegal aliens illegally trying to buy guns.

 

I saw that on the news (Fox News, of course as I don't expect CNN or PMSNBC to report on that).

It makes one want to believe that the POS lib/prog/socialists are trying to dis-arm the law-abiding American people and arm the illegal alien criminals that infest this country like the parasitic plague that they truly are, felons, and certain minorities who now seem to be exempt from the nations firearm laws.

 

Yes, law abiding citizens are just that. They will at least try to obey most laws.

The Federal law may say punishable by up to 10 years and or a $10,000 fine for lying on a 4473, straw purchases, etc. The problem is on average, if they chose to prosecute, their investigation could take over a year.

 

If they do not prosecute, the law has no effect, and, for all intents and purposes, not exist.

 

I don't disagree with you. More laws absolutely won't change anything.

I am only try to offer some rational explanation as to why things are as they are. The left doesn't get it.

 

She said background checks for buying the gun and obtaining the FOID card are different than background checks for the concealed-carry permit.
"The ... firearm purchase does not require fingerprint. There is a background check, but no fingerprint is required," she said.
"As part of conceal and carry, that is when the fingerprint" is examined, she said

 

Why do the federal background checks for the purchase and the state background check for the FOID not include fingerprints?
Because the Democrats that wrote, voted for, and signed into law the bills that created these checks chose to not include them.

Thus:
You only have the Democrats to blame for this as they chose to not include fingerprinting for background checks.

I ask again:
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

Whoever "she" is didn't just buy a firearm.

I did and I got fingerprinted (I told you that but you must have a reading or comprehension problem or something).

Did YOU buy a firearm recently? EVER???

 

What state do you live in?

 

I think "she", Aurora Chief of Police Kristen Ziman, knows more about the law of Aurora than you do. Do you bother to read links before jumping into a thread?

 

with all the layoffs corps been doing as of late, shipping jobs overseas, surprised not seeing more of this really

 

Still waiting for you to address the question:
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

Yes, so do you think that should be changed to include the requirements of a simple fingerprint in the background checks? All felons have their fingerprints on easily accessible records as I'm sure you know