jmr40 said:
Yea, it was the wrong decision in this case. But based on the info they had and current policy I don't think anyone messed up.
I'm going to disagree with you -- subject to the caveat that I know only what information I have been fed by the media.
First, he went to the FBI making claims that a U.S. intelligence agency was controlling his mind and forcing him to read ISIS propaganda. The FBI handed him off to a mental health clinic for an evaluation (not an involuntary, adjudicated, commitment). I understand that the FBI is not in the mental health business, BUT -- there were definitely some triggers in there, such as "intelligence agencies," "forced," and "ISIS." It seems the FBI was only too happy to hand him off and wash their hands of him, which was (in retrospect) a mistake. With all the concern these days about lone wolf, self-radicalized Islamist terrorists, IMHO any rational FBI agent would have heard "ISIS" and started looking at what this guy has been doing, and who he has been doing it with. Which should have quickly led to the fact he was recently kicked out of the National Guard. That should raise its own questions. So I think the FBI dropped the ball.
Then we get to the shrinks. Four days really is not a lot of time to evaluate someone with deep-seated psychoses and/or neuroses, but that's what the law allows. They have to do the best they can. In this case, it certainly appears that they blew it. However, at least some of the articles have suggested that he was under on-going treatment in Alaska. So maybe it wasn't the shrinks in the evaluation clinic who screwed the pooch, but the shrink who was handling the on-going therapy. He or she should certainly have recognized that this was a person who should not have access to firearms, and reported him to NICS. I don't say that lightly, because I am a Vietnam veteran and I dread to notion that the VA or the SSA might try to strip me of my 2A rights at any time if I say the wrong thing. But, come on ... an intelligence agency is controlling his mind, and
forcing him to watch ISIS propaganda? And that didn't raise any red flags to a shrink? Really?
Then there are the police. They took the hand-off from the FBI and sent him to be evaluated. They had possession of his gun. How did they NOT see that he had a domestic violence charge pending? They gave him back his gun!
And then we learned recently that he flew from Alaska to Florida on a one-way ticket. Folks, YEARS ago it was established that one-way tickets were a strong hint of possible terrorist intentions. Here we had a guy flying with a one-way ticket
and a firearm. Why didn't THAT set off some red flags?
In short, I think there's plenty of blame to spread around in this case, and none of it should result in any new anti-gun laws that further penalize those of us who are honest, sane, and benign. But, being that this is the world we're in, I expect to see the myriad lapses ignored or swept under the carpet and more anti-gun laws passed, because that's the easy way for politicians to appear to be doing something instead of trying to figure out how to plug the obvious holes in the dike. It's easier to blame it on
GUNZ! than it is to address underlying, systemic issues.
