More Details, and They Aren’t Good

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

The report quoted Mrs. [No Publicity for Cop Killers] as saying her son, after being kicked out of the Marine Corps for assaulting his drill sergeant during basic training, had been “stockpiling guns and ammunition, buying and selling the weapons online, because he believed that as a result of the economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society.”

Assault your NCO is certainly a Court Martial offense, but did they go through with it and manage to discharge him dishonorably?  Or did they just discharge him administratively and leave it at that?  It also reports that he was buying and selling weapons online, which you can’t do legally without going though an FFL, unless it’s a long gun and it’s a private sale between residents of the same state.  Pennsylvania has no private sales of handguns.  Of course, if he was dishonorably discharged, all bets are off, and any transfer of a firearm to him is unlawful.

12 Responses to “More Details, and They Aren’t Good”

  1. Kevin Baker says:

    And the BATFE – the department of the .gov responsible for enforcing, you know, the law – was where doing what? Oh, right – harassing manufacturers and licensed dealers. It’s easier to do that than chase down “prohibited persons” who, you know, might shoot first.

  2. jones says:

    Of course if there were an economic collapse, he would starve to death in a city…

  3. Rustmeister says:

    Probably an administrative action, they don’t waste much time with trainees.

    He can still get a dishonorable, though.

  4. Xrlq says:

    This is the same media that can’t tell AIG, the hedge fund from AIG, the insurer. Should we really expect them to know the difference between a dishonorable discharge, a bad conduct discharge, or anything else short of a full-blown honorable discharge?

  5. hazmat says:

    The only way one can get a bad conduct/dishonorable discharge is through courts martial. Other Than Honorable and General are administrative discharges given as a result of Article 15 punishment. Normally, an incident in Basic results in the trainee being sent home on an “Incompatible For Military Service” discharge which is non-attributional.

    The first two types of discharges result in the disqualification (see the check boxes on the 4473), while the administrative discharges don’t qualify unless it’s domestic violence. So if this f***stick got a DD, he was disqualified and anyone who supplied him, whether FFL or private individual should prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.

  6. chris says:

    word is that he also had outstanding domestic restraining orders and DV charges against him…

  7. Fiftycal says:

    Don’t know about Pa, but the dishonorable would only prevent him from buying from a FFL. Don’t know of any state laws that prevent gun possesion solely on the basis of a dishonorable discharge.

  8. Sebastian says:

    It prevents him from possessing a firearm as well. Federal law prohibits possession, not just purchase. Does that jibe with their commerce clause powers? The courts have never held it doesn’t.

  9. Fiftycal says:

    No, Federal law places no restriction on individuals who “lawfully obtain” guns in their state of residence unless the state has a law that makes possesion by someone dishonorably discharged. Feel free to cite the law.

  10. Kevin says:

    OK I know a DD would disqualify him from legally buying, but it should not stop him as far as I can see. How is an FFL going to know if he has a BCD or a DD ? Do they show up on a NICS check?
    If not, only his “honor” would stop him from checking the NO box and buying. the FFL has to take his word if he does not give off obvious bad vibes.
    I’m waiting for the local news ghouls to publicize the gun store who sold him the guns. I hope he didn’t get them at the PAGC show.

  11. Sebastian says:

    It’s supposed to show up on NICS.

  12. Xrlq says:


    No, Federal law places no restriction on individuals who “lawfully obtain” guns in their state of residence unless the state has a law that makes possesion [sic] by someone dishonorably discharged. Feel free to cite the law.

    That would be 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(6), which provides that:

    It shall be unlawful for any person … who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions … to … possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

    Now you feel free to cite the other, allegedly existent law that supposedly overrides that. Or you can admit you had no idea WTF you were talking about. Your call.


  1. SayUncle » More details on the shooter - [...] Unsurprisingly, he was likely legally prohibited from owning guns. [...]
  2. Pro-Gun Progressive » Time For More Spot The Bias - [...] lead to renewed calls for AWBs. No mention, of course, of the fact that the shooter in question probably…