Year: 2009

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.

More details are coming out from The Post-Gazette:

Records indicate that Mr. [Bonehead] was dishonorably discharged from the corps during basic training. Friends said he wanted out so he could rejoin his girlfriend.

Unless he strangled someone,or murdered his drill sergeant, I’m having a hard time believing he got a DD from basic.  More likely, I think, is that he got a less than honorable discharge.  An actual DD only happens after a Court Martial, usually for a pretty serious offense.  It is, for all intents and purposes, considered a felony conviction, and not just for firearms.  My understanding is that if you desert, that’s grounds for a Court Martial and a Dishonorable Discharge, but that’s usually accompanied by time in prison.  I think eighteen months is the going rate.  Used to be desertion got you lined up in front of a firing squad.

Says this article:

Perkovic also said that [Scumbag Killer Who I Won’t Do the Honor of Naming] had received a dishonorable discharge from the Marines and that he has a history of domestic disputes.

If he was dishonorably discharged, it’s not lawful for him to have a gun.

From this AP article:

One friend, Edward Perkovic, said the gunman feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said he feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he “wasn’t violently against Obama.”

Perkovic, a 22-year-old who said he was the gunman’s best friend, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, “Eddie, I am going to die today. … Tell your family I love them and I love you.”

Perkovic said: “I heard gunshots and he hung up. … He sounded like he was in pain, like he got shot.”

Vire, 23, said the gunman once had an Internet talk show but that it wasn’t successful. Vire said his friend had an AK-47 rifle and several powerful handguns, including a .357 Magnum.

He was wearing a ballistic vest, and used the AK-47 in the shooting.  He was also stockpiling.

Mr. [Asshole] told him he bought his guns “because he felt the quality of life was being diminished,” Mr. Vire said.

“He said he’ll be ready if there’s ever an invasion of the United States and that he had stockpiled foods and guns for that eventuality.”

He apparently also had a failed Internet Podcast.  If you wonder why I’m so against the use of explicit threat of violence in defense of gun rights, this is the reason why.  You don’t know what nutball out there’s going to take it seriously, and not get the subtle nuances of “Fort Sumters” and whatnot.  I’m not saying this is anyone’s fault, and free speech is free specch, but there’s a danger in fanning the flames of some people’s paranoid delusions.

Three officers dead in Pittsburgh.