Ammo For Sale

« « Use a holster | Home | Rand Paul attacked » »

Mass shooting at a Church in Texas

So, another mass shooting and folks are furiously trying to pin the political tail on the loon. The perp was a prohibited person due to a dishonorable discharge. Yet he passed the background check for the AR he used. He was, however, denied a carry permit.

The shooter was chased and shot by two local guys. They had an AR-15.

And, of course, the usual howling to pass laws that wouldn’t have prevented it is starting.

21 Responses to “Mass shooting at a Church in Texas”

  1. Paul Koning Says:

    I made a reference to the “prohibited person” bit on another site, and someone replied that he got a Bad Conduct Discharge and that isn’t disqualifying. Not having any military background, I don’t know the difference (if any) nor if he’s right about “not disqualifying”. If yes, it is disqualifying, the obvious answer is why the check passed. Doesn’t the FBI have the dishonorable discharge information?

  2. Lyle Says:

    The Texas Attorney General this morning praised the actions of the armed citizen defense, which chased down the perp and called in the police. Trump also called their actions “fornutate”. I was glad to hear that, at least. An AG doesn’t say something like that on national radio and then call it back.

    And, “pin the political affiliation on the donkey perp” notwithstanding, it’s a safe bet that the perp wasn’t a libertarian Christian at heart. Need it be said? One does not do something like that out of love for human life and liberty.

  3. Ron W Says:

    It seems to fit perfectly with an agenda to persuade Southern State conservatives and libertarians to the side of citizen disarmament agenda. As for me, if it were possible, I’m persuaded all the more to the armed defense of Life and Liberty.


  4. DJ Says:

    Laws don’t prevent anything. They proscribe a punishment that may discourage actions . There were laws in place that were ignored. More laws? More laws to ignore. This is not hard to deduce.

  5. Joe A Says:

    Laws in addition to those which enabled the shooter to have a “safe workplace” by prohibiting the means of resistance.

    Laws which, in this case, would have prevented it ending when it did – although, I wouldn’t count on lack of firearms preventing these boys from doing their civic duty.

  6. Lyle Says:

    NYT reports he was court-marshalled for domestic violence. That would have prevented him from buying a gun legally if they’d filed with the feds, but of course would do nothing to prevent anyone from getting a gun illegally.

    Only the delusional would believe (or the liar would pretend to believe) that any gun restriction would prevent murder.

    Banning any kind of gun would only hand over a monopoly on that gun to law-breakers. Therefore any infringement on the second amendment is a pro-crime measure, encumbering the law-abiding while enabling law-breakers. Those who support such measures support criminals, or are criminals themselves.

  7. Tirno Says:

    I think where the breakdown might be is the lack of a specific domestic violence charge under the UCMJ. The perp-in-question got his Big Chicken Dinner for a conviction of assault, but he did not get the disqualifying Duck Dinner.

    If he had been charged in a civvie court, Iíve no doubt that would have triggered Lautenburg.

    I surmised that this is why he was not in NICS, but this turned up when he applied for a CCW in Texas and they denied him.

  8. Ron W Says:

    “Banning any kind of gun would only hand over a monopoly on that gun to law-breakers. Therefore any infringement on the second amendment is a pro-crime measure, encumbering the law-abiding while enabling law-breakers. Those who support such measures support criminals, or are criminals themselves.”–Lyle

    That bears repeating and being spread abroad!

  9. Tirno Says:

    … ooooorrrr, to follow up my previous post, maybe the USAF Office of Special investigations just didn’t report the conviction to NICS like they were supposed to.

    And then, when he appealed the status of his discharge and got rejected, nobody realized that NICS didn’t have a finger on him.

    Dammit, who was in ultimate charge of the USAF back in 2014? It’s like that person was uninterested in the job, and the whole chain of command below followed that unmistakable lead. (Unfair in some ways, but screw it, the buck stops…where?)

  10. Ravenwood Says:


    USAF admitted just that this morning. He was prohibited, and should have been reported to NICS. They’re still investigating, but have come out and admitted dropping the ball, which is shocking.

  11. mikee Says:

    Amazing that the perpetrator’s attack was stopped by a legally armed citizen.

    Amazing that the perpetrator did not take the gun from the legally armed citizen and use it against him.

    Amazing that the citizen didn’t shoot a bunch of innocent people by mistake.

    Amazing that the police didn’t shoot the legallya armed citizen by mistake upon arrival at the crash site.

    Amazing, at least to those who support disarmament.

    I am amazed that there are people whose preference is to see more people shot by such a killer, with no such thing as a legally armed citizen available to stop him.

  12. JTC Says:

    Keeping mike’s amazing chain going, I am amazed to have seen NRA’s mantra (Wayne I think)from a while back repeated in MSM:

    “A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.”

    Amazed too that USAF didn’t just firing-squad that POS when they convicted him of this DV, not the typical slap or whatever that costs many citizens their 2A privilege but beating the dog shit out of his ex and cracking his baby’s skull? Death is too good for him, but would have at least have saved these good innocent people’s lives whereas putting it in the system probably would not have any more than the rap sheets of Chitown thugs keeps them from wholesale homicide.

  13. JTC Says:

    Even when the LA Times tries to spin it negative, it comes out positive for anyone with a single functioning reason synapse firing in the brain.

  14. Magus Says:

    First hand account from the gentleman who stopped and gave chase to the shooter:

  15. Jay Eimer Says:

    Clarification on military crimes – the UCMJ doesn’t make any distinction between felony and misdemeanor. If it’s minor, you get an Article 15 punishment (like DUI first offense, you get chewed out by your CO and he takes a stripe). More major, you get tried by a court martial, and you get a JAG lawyer (and another JAG will be the prosecutor). If convicted at the court martial, you get fined, stripe(s) taken, incarcerated or kicked out.

    ALL of this goes in your record. A Dishonorable Discharge is interpreted by civilian authority as equivalent to a felony conviction. A Bad Conduct discharge is a misdemeanor. Other than Honorable is still less serious (detrimental to military discipline but not necessarily a crime in the civilian world). If you have an Article 15, you can’t get an Honorable, but with no court martial you can’t get BCD or DD. Many Article 15 cases are things that would get you fired at work, but not arrested – mouthing off at your boss, for example, or being late repeatedly.

    As far as NICS goes, BCD and DD are supposed to be reported to NICS. DD are automatically “prohibited persons”, BCDs will also be for certain offenses – and domestic violence is one of them (under the Lautenberg Amendment).

    Of course, court martial conviction for domestic violence means he commited a federal felony by answering “No” to the “have you ever been convicted….” question (lying on a 4473).

    The breakdown here is the USAF failing to report his court martial to NICS and the shooter lying on 4473s when he bought his guns after he got out.

  16. Deaf Smith Says:

    It is all about the mythical ‘gun violence’ shtick.

    After all the truck attacks, like in NYC where EIGHT WERE KILLED, and bombing attacks like at the Boston Marathon, plus knife attacks, the liberals still think banning guns will stop these …. no wait, they think they will just magically stop gun attacks (they don’t care if people die by other means, just ‘gun violence’!)

    That is why it is called ‘gun violence’ and not just ‘violence’. They want to ban guns. There is no interest in stopping mass killings, only killings with guns. They don’t care if you can’t defend yourself or others, just as long as ‘gun violence’ stops. See, self defense shootings, to them, are ‘gun violence’ and must be stopped.

    So remember, all they are interested is in banning guns, not stopping mass killings.

  17. JTC Says:

    @Deaf, been saying it for years: ain’t no such thing as “gun violence”, yet the term is so pervasive that even gunnies often use it. They should stop.

    It is “criminal violence” or “criminally armed violence”. Trucks, knives, clubs, guns, all are just tools.

  18. Blounttruth Says:

    More leftist media pant shitting, “Shooters weapon was able to have a chain saw attachment”….

  19. Ron W Says:


    And the media doesn’t care that the government either failed or didn’t bother to obey current gun laws which would have prevented the perp from buying guns. Yet they want more collectivist gun laws which are aimed at (pun intended) millions of citizens who have and never would do such a crime.

  20. Paul Koning Says:

    JTC, on your note 12, the Washington Times is not exactly MSM. It’s quite a conservative paper. Now if that comment had appeared in the NYT or the Washington Post (both far left rags), that would have been a surprise.

  21. JTC Says:

    Paul K, msm and not completely biased left) are not *totally* mutually exclusive terms; it’s close but WT is still a mainstream outlet.

    Still, your point is why I also followed up with the LA Times link at 13.