The gunman who slaughtered 26 people at a Texas church was able to buy weapons because the Air Force failed to report his domestic violence conviction to the federal database that is used to conduct background checks on would-be gun purchasers, authorities said Monday.
Federal officials said the Air Force didn’t submit Devin Patrick Kelley’s criminal history even though it was required to do so by Pentagon rules.
Kelley, 26, was found guilty of assault in an Air Force court-martial in 2012 for abusing his wife and her child and was given 12 months’ confinement followed by a bad-conduct discharge in 2014. That same year, authorities said, he bought the first of four weapons.
Under Pentagon rules, information about convictions of military personnel for crimes like assault should be submitted to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Investigation Services Division.
It’s the kind of lapse that gun-control advocates say points to loopholes and failures with the background check system.
At issue is the Lautenberg Amendment, enacted by Congress in 1996. The federal law was designed to prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from buying or possessing a firearm regardless of whether the crime was a felony or a misdemeanor.
“This is exactly the guy the Lautenberg Amendment is supposed to prevent from possessing a firearm,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate. “Of course, the law only works if folks are abiding by the law.”
Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in an email that the service is launching a review of its handling of Kelley’s case and taking a comprehensive look at Air Force databases to make sure other cases have been reported correctly.
An initial review indicates that Kelley’s conviction was not entered into the federal database by officials at Holloman Air Force Base’s Office of Special Investigations, the Air Force said.
Kelley served at Holloman in New Mexico from 2010 until his discharge. He was in logistics, responsible for moving passengers and cargo.
Law enforcement authorities said Kelley owned four guns, including the three he had with him during the attack: a Ruger AR-15 that was used in the church and two handguns that were in his car. The weapons were purchased — one each year — from 2014 to this year.
A 2015 report by the Pentagon’s inspector general found lapses in the military’s reporting to civilian authorities of domestic violence convictions.
From Nov. 30, 1998, until last week, firearms purchases in the U.S. were denied 136,502 times because of a domestic violence conviction, according to Justice Department statistics.
“The fact this guy was even court-martialed at all indicates it reached a certain level of severity that should act as a red flag that this is a dangerous person and shouldn’t have a gun,” said Lindsay Nichols, the federal policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after former Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was gravely wounded by a gunman in 2011.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
Because the Defense Department was communicating with the Justice Department.
No wonder some people prefer NOT to rely on these guys for protection.
That is the problem with things that are “good enough for government work”
The Air Force made a mistake. Therefore making laws that restrict civilian gun ownership is the solution? Am I missing something here?
Why is Congress so beholden to the nra? Even commonsense gun law reform isn’t possible, in the meantime literally hundreds of citizens are being slaughtered and hurt by people who shouldn’t have guns and automatic weapons nobody needs.
The Texas shooter was able to buy guns because all the gun laws in the world will never prevent criminals from getting them. Gun laws are by definition only for people who care about the law. The more restrictive gun laws become, the more law-abiding citizens won’t be able to obtain them – and people like the guy who engaged the shooter and prevented the massacre from becoming even worse will disappear.
That’s why, in places like Texas, anyone who is out to kill has to find a church or some similar place to do it. Because even Texans don’t bring their guns to church. Had this been in a mall, or on the street, the guy would have been shot faster than you can say gun control.
Obviously if there was some kind of mandated reporting that should have happened and didn’t, that needs to be addressed. But that doesn’t change the basic fact that people intent on committing violent crimes with guns will get them one way or another.
RT: because “common sense” gun reform isn’t common sense. What do you want? Closing the gun show loophole? It doesn’t exist. Universal background checks? Already have them, and a vast majority of criminals don’t buy legal guns.10 round magazine limits? Makes no difference to anyone who spends a few minutes practicing magazine changes. I’ll bet after the Vegas shooting, you want to ban bump stocks. Go ahead, the same effect can be achieved using a finger. Notice how on abortion, you have doctors on both sides. Global warming, scientists on both sides. Single payer health care, economists and doctors on both sides. Gun control, anyone who knows anything about guns is pro gun. Why? Because we know that the things that are being proposed make no difference except they regulate scary looking and sounding things. Silencers which don’t silence, Assualt rifles that aren’t assault rifles, machine guns that are not machine guns. But saying those things sounds scarier than the truth, and that gets Democrat votes. You don’t need to speak your mind. But you have a right to. Not having a Need doesn’t change anything. Also, the percentage of people who have used automatic weapons in murders is so small it is statistically insignificant. Kind of like AR 15s, which are used in about 1% of murders with firearms annually. But they look scary, so politicians who know nothing harp on them to get votes.
How refreshing – a coherent discussion of gun control issues by people who understand the issues and can make a logical, coherent argument instead of resorting to emotions and fear mongering.