How Did the Texas Church Killer Manage to Buy Guns?

If you noticed all the updates to the last post here - or woke up this morning - you are most likely aware that the story behind the Texas church shooter is evolving. It has been very confusing from the get go due to the journalistic excellence of our mainstream media who is more concerned with being first than being right. 

The biggest issue is the mystery surrounding his military service. Well, it turns out this guy was in the US Air Force. Originally, it was released that he had been dishonorably discharged, which was big news, because a dishonorable discharge automatically disqualifies you from purchasing firearms by legal means. But... he bought his firearms from licensed dealers. What gives? And at least one was a giant sporting goods store, not your local mom and pop gun store (although, let's be fair. At the mom and pop, the sales people can at least find their butts with a map when it comes to gun and gun law knowledge. That isn't always the case in these big sporting goods places). 

The story was then corrected to say he had a bad behavior discharge after being locked up for domestic violence against his then wife and his child. Sooo.... let's look at the 4473 again.

Bust out your reading glasses and scroll down to question 11i. "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?" A yes check on that question immediately ends the sale.

Great! All he has to do is check "no," right? No. It should have shown up in his NICS background check that he had served time under the military for domestic violence, and as such, he should have failed his background check. 

But that didn't happen.

At least four times.

Where was the disconnect? He was denied a concealed carry permit in Texas. So what showed up during that check that barred him from getting the carry license that didn't show up when he was purchasing his guns? Why did this not show up in the NICS database? It was supposed to. Is it an issue with NICS or an issue with the military? 

Sounds to me like this is less of a gun control issue and more of an issue with enforcing laws already on the books. It also appears your "universal background check" idea may have some holes. 

And there's the biggest issue with gun control advocates. David Frum here doesn't seem to know it is already a law on the books. If you have been convicted of domestic violence, you can't legally purchase a firearm. For the rest of your life. A lot of the laws being pushed by gun control advocates are, in fact, laws already on the books that no one has bothered to enforce. Maybe it's time to learn the laws before running your mouth, and then let's get together and get the government talking about enforcing the laws!

How did this guy fall through the cracks in the system? How did this not get added to the database as it appears to have not been? How was this guy able to legally purchase four firearms in two states that he was actually federally bared from buying?!

Universal background checks are a huge talking point right now because of the imaginary gun show loophole, where gun grabbers tell us we can walk into any gun show anywhere in the USA and buy any gun from a black powder to a fully automatic machine gun without any type of background check at all. What they actually want is a law to do away with private sales - which don't require a gun show - and the ability to pass your firearms down to your children. But since this guy was able to get his guns despite the background check when he shouldn't have, how does that help? How would that have prevented this tragedy? Or the Las Vegas shooting? Or any gang violence in the USA today?

What they need to figure out is how this happened. Find the disconnect. It may be time to overhaul the NICS system. It may also be time to find a way to get government agencies communicating with each other.

That conviction should have been in his file. It should have showed up on a NICS check. The sale should have been denied by the FBI immediately. Once that denial was made, police should have been dispatched to pick him up for attempting to purchase a firearm when he wasn't legally allowed to. That is the law currently on the books. 

In my seven years working in a gun store, they never arrested any of the people involved in any of the attempted straw sales we reported. People who did show up as felons were not arrested (felons aren't even allowed in the parking lot of a gun store, so that alone was an arrestable offense, let alone the fact that they attempted to purchase a firearm). I witnessed two arrests during my career. One was a felon unlawfully in a gun store, and they only did that because the guy was mentally ill and went off his rocker in the store. The other was actually after a background check, but the guy apparently had several warrants and was wanted by two different federal agencies. But we called to report attempted straw sales all the time. We averaged about five a week (it was a sizable and popular store). We had denied background checks all the time. No arrests were ever made, even though the laws on the books - and the posters the stores are required to hang up - say it is required.

So why are we talking about more gun control when we aren't enforcing the laws on the books already?!

Update 11/6/17 10:19 PM: It appears the Air Force is giving us a lesson in the meaning of FUBAR. According to multiple reports, the Air Force did not flag his criminal history, which did not get the information to NICS. The Pentagon is investigating. 

Watch the video here.