"...plotting to shoot up a "Twilight" showing...."

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by Question 12f on the federal 4473 Firearms Transaction Form:

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent
to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

then...

> Blaec Lammers, 20, of Bolivar, followed a female clerk around a
> Walmart store in 2009, threatening her. He wasn't charged, but
> was committed for 96 hours for a mental health examination.
> Lammers, whose own mother turned him in Thursday, faces three
> felony charges in the alleged shooting plot.
>
> recently had purchased weapons -- two assault rifles and hundreds of bullets --
> that were similar to those used by a gunman who opened fire inside a theater in
> Aurora, Colo., during the latest Batman movie in July. That attack killed 12 people.
> Police wrote in the probable cause statement that Lammers was "off of his medication."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/17...#ixzz2CXOaKA4N

I take it this kind of "commitment" doesn't count, AND somehow his actions/commitment in 2009 didn't raise any red flags?

[klyph3]

Mental health is the latest justification being pushed to revoke your right to keep and bear arms. Has anyone ever told you that you're crazy? Turn in all your guns, the college psych majors say you shouldn't have them anymore.

[Tom Servo]

We don't really know enough about the nature of the commitment to comment. Generally, to be considered ineligible, a person has to have been committed by a judge or board of review, as part of a criminal sentence, or involuntarily.

For example, someone voluntarily checking themselves into rehab doesn't count.

[youngunz4life]

he didn't have to be 21 and was legal at twenty years of age. Being he was pretty young, it isn't unheqard of to be eligible...I think he can pretty much forget about being eligible to purchase firearms again though(however, I am not a legal expert & I could be wrong about this).

One thing is for sure(in my opinion), this guy will be on the streets again one way or the other and probably sooner than later. Unlike the aurora colorado gunman, things are different here. One needs to understand that...though scary...it is the way it is(sortof like how he was able to buy firearms in the first place(there is only so much 'someone' can do to prevent stuff)

[2damnold4this]

We don't really know enough about the nature of the commitment to comment. Generally, to be considered ineligible, a person has to have been committed by a judge or board of review, as part of a criminal sentence, or involuntarily.

For example, someone voluntarily checking themselves into rehab doesn't count.

^this

Could be he lied on the form 4473. Could be that no judge was involved in the 2009 incident. What is encouraging was his mother turning him in before he hurt anyone including himself.

[noelf2]

Glad he got caught. Good on his mother for doing the right thing. I'm from the little Ozark town of Bolivar Mo (dont' live there now). He could have killed friends of mine, but as many old boys I know that carry there, he'd have probably been down before police ever showed up.

[44 AMP]

There are lots of possibilites in English, and even though the words may be the same, the language used in law is different than what is used in the news, or in regular conversation.

For example, if you told a court you pulled up to the stop sign, and "waited a minute" before proceeding, you have just stated, under oath that you waited 60 seconds (no more, and no less) before proceeding.

Likewise, "committed" has a specific meaning in law. Being sent to a facility for observation for 72 (or 96, etc) hours does not mean "committed" in the sense of making you a prohibited person. And although a reporter is grammatically correct saying you were "committed", that's as far as they can go. By using that particular term, they are inferring, or implying something that is just not the legal definition.

Also, I very seriously doubt that Lammers purchased actual assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire, and as such, by Federal law are machine guns. What he purchased might be assault weapons (as defined in law, semiautomatic firearms with certain combinations of specific features), which happened to be rifles.

Since he was under 21, but over 18, was not a convicted felon, nor had any conviction for domestic violence, and had not been "committed" in the legal sense (by a judge) as far as I can tell, he was not a prohibited person under the law, and therefore, had every right to buy what he did, and broke no law doing so.

That being said, even though he broke no law getting weapons, and didn't actually use them, his plans to use them consititute threats, and might also fall under some of the anti-terrorist laws as well.

Tell your Mom or your friends you want to shoot up a movie house, and its either BS and blown off, or someone gets seriously worried. Tell the cops the same thing, and its making a threat and (if even remotely creditable) gets you arrested, and the system goes to work.

I'm glad his Mom took it seriously enough to involve the authorities, because based on what they determined (as reported), he was a creditable threat to the public.

Based on the reports, he is a very disturbed young man, and we will all benefit (him included) from his being stopped before he was able to actually carry out his twisted dreams.