Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rickyrick
IN MY OPINION, the shooter shouldn’t have gotten a gun based on the rules we have. He was a candidate for firearms denial.
|
While in retrospect it's obvious that he should not have had access to firearms,
based on the rules we have just how should he have been barred? He had no felony or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, he had not been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, and there were no protective orders on him.
It's probably the latter that could have offered the avenue to disarming him ... IF the sheriff's office had followed up on the myriad of reports that the kid was a menace in the making. But, even if the sheriff's office had followed up, due process still applies and we can't know how that process might have played out since it was never initiated.