On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 10:42:28 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
http://yournewswire.com/texas-church...er-antifa/amp/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Texas shooter was a convicted wife abuser who did a year in prison and was sold a gun. Period. You cannot run away from the fact that a proper background check would have disqualified him from purchasing this weapon.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:10:55 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 10:42:28 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
http://yournewswire.com/texas-church...er-antifa/amp/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Texas shooter was a convicted wife abuser who did a year in prison and was sold a gun. Period. You cannot run away from the fact that a proper background check would have disqualified him from purchasing this weapon.

That raises an interesting question. It's true that the
background-check laws would exclude someone found guilty of violent
domestic abuse, that this was a *military* court that did so. I wonder
if there is even a channel for military courts to inform the FBI/NICS
system that there is an exclusionary violation for any individual?

Hmmm...

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:25:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:10:55 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 10:42:28 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
http://yournewswire.com/texas-church...er-antifa/amp/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Texas shooter was a convicted wife abuser who did a year in prison and was sold a gun. Period. You cannot run away from the fact that a proper background check would have disqualified him from purchasing this weapon.

That raises an interesting question. It's true that the
background-check laws would exclude someone found guilty of violent
domestic abuse, that this was a *military* court that did so. I wonder
if there is even a channel for military courts to inform the FBI/NICS
system that there is an exclusionary violation for any individual?

Hmmm...

Government.
Right hand
Left hand
Right hand
Left hand

Nope! Not likely!!

On 11/6/2017 12:25 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:10:55 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 10:42:28 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
http://yournewswire.com/texas-church...er-antifa/amp/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Texas shooter was a convicted wife abuser who did a year in prison and was sold a gun. Period. You cannot run away from the fact that a proper background check would have disqualified him from purchasing this weapon.

That raises an interesting question. It's true that the
background-check laws would exclude someone found guilty of violent
domestic abuse, that this was a *military* court that did so. I wonder
if there is even a channel for military courts to inform the FBI/NICS
system that there is an exclusionary violation for any individual?


The New York Times says there is, and says as well the Air Force effed
up in not reporting it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/u...ng-church.html

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:31:30 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 11/6/2017 12:25 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:10:55 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 10:42:28 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
http://yournewswire.com/texas-church...er-antifa/amp/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Texas shooter was a convicted wife abuser who did a year in prison and was sold a gun. Period. You cannot run away from the fact that a proper background check would have disqualified him from purchasing this weapon.

That raises an interesting question. It's true that the
background-check laws would exclude someone found guilty of violent
domestic abuse, that this was a *military* court that did so. I wonder
if there is even a channel for military courts to inform the FBI/NICS
system that there is an exclusionary violation for any individual?


The New York Times says there is, and says as well the Air Force effed
up in not reporting it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/u...ng-church.html

Yeah, I caught that, and it's been on the news tonight.

You probably know that such non-reporting is the biggest problem with
the background-check NICS system. IIRC, that's also how the kid who
shot up Virginia Tech got through. In that case, it was a mnetal
hospital or clinic that knew he had crossed the line for firearms
possession, but never reported it.

Several state police organizations have said they can't do it in cases
of crime reporting, because they don't have the funding for it.

But as long as there is no way to control private sales, it's just
window dressing, anyway. The NRA's lobbying has been very effective.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:09:07 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:25:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:10:55 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 10:42:28 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
http://yournewswire.com/texas-church...er-antifa/amp/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Texas shooter was a convicted wife abuser who did a year in prison and was sold a gun. Period. You cannot run away from the fact that a proper background check would have disqualified him from purchasing this weapon.

That raises an interesting question. It's true that the
background-check laws would exclude someone found guilty of violent
domestic abuse, that this was a *military* court that did so. I wonder
if there is even a channel for military courts to inform the FBI/NICS
system that there is an exclusionary violation for any individual?

Hmmm...

Government.
Right hand
Left hand
Right hand
Left hand

Nope! Not likely!!

They forgot to tell the State about his Court Martial/DD. Right, not
likely. But why didn't he FBI know this and step in? Surely they
were following him on social media after some of his statements and
known Antifa associations. No, the FBI is too set on ruining Trump to
have time for that little stuff, like protecting America. sigh

It's time for a Congressional review of the (in)actions and antics
performed by the FBI, STAT!

--
In reality, serendipity accounts for one percent of the blessings
we receive in life, work and love. The other 99 percent is due to
our efforts.
-- Peter McWilliams