"In December, 2019, two months after the police call, the killer’s father (no, I won’t use his name) co-signed a gun license application, which is required in Illinois, and a sponsor is required for applicants under 21 years old. The state police found no reason to deny the application. That’s a problem right there."
"According to the family’s attorney, the father claims he was unaware of the threats when he signed the application, because his son lived with another relative at the time. That’s some good lawyering to get out in front of a civil liability suit or potential manslaughter charge."
"The AP obtained a statement from the state police, that “there was insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger” to deny the application. There’s a huge disconnect between requiring a father to sign, and the state doing its due diligence. That’s why the law failed, and why all the other state laws fail."
The State of Illinois definitely dropped the ball in doing its due diligence, but I hope that the State also hauls the father into court on some enabling or accessory charges since he did sign that application. To not do so renders that application basically meaningless, if there's no consequence for endorsing the suitability of someone to possess a firearm. I hope Illinois makes an example this fellow so future endorsements aren't made so blithely.
It probably won't happen via the Republican Party. Even a hint of a GOP pol supporting "red flag laws" will get that pol voted out of office, due to the reactionary nature of the base.
We can solve this problem in less than a decade. Just double the budget for law enforcement. Force DA's to enforce the laws as written and quadruple the allowable capacity of jail cells.
If you double law enforcement budget and quadruple jail capacity, you also have to hire more prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. Clerks, courtrooms, bailiffs, IT people also are needed. You’re basically creating a police state and a fertile environment for moldy trial lawyers, bail bondsmen, and the rest of the bacterial legal circus to grow in. Better hire Eliot Ness types too, because large police states tend to go sideways into corruption. But that definitely would solve the gun problem for sure.
When I said law enforcement budget, I foresaw these additional resource requirements in a large part. Probably not getting it all, like IT, but agree with what you said. I think it would fix the root cause, not the gun problem. There I go stealing ideas from Kamy, sorry. The gun violence escalation is due in a large part to the breakdown of society not the number of guns in America. Granted, the breakdown in society is not wholly the result of the law enforcement breakdown. Problems like family unit breakdown, education system breakdown and others are also major contributors but if we go with the law enforcement idea it will also scoop up members of society that propagate these morally corrupt ideas. As to your police state comment, I acknowledge the risk but find that risk is a lesser evil than the evil of a morally corrupt society which we have, in a large part, today.
I read somewhere that a constitution, like ours, that guarantees individual freedoms and the right to self-determination, requires honorable citizens of good will to be workable. It appears that greed and envy and laziness have become the dominant traits in our society. Career politicians and the nanny state have not helped.
"In December, 2019, two months after the police call, the killer’s father (no, I won’t use his name) co-signed a gun license application, which is required in Illinois, and a sponsor is required for applicants under 21 years old. The state police found no reason to deny the application. That’s a problem right there."
"According to the family’s attorney, the father claims he was unaware of the threats when he signed the application, because his son lived with another relative at the time. That’s some good lawyering to get out in front of a civil liability suit or potential manslaughter charge."
"The AP obtained a statement from the state police, that “there was insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger” to deny the application. There’s a huge disconnect between requiring a father to sign, and the state doing its due diligence. That’s why the law failed, and why all the other state laws fail."
The State of Illinois definitely dropped the ball in doing its due diligence, but I hope that the State also hauls the father into court on some enabling or accessory charges since he did sign that application. To not do so renders that application basically meaningless, if there's no consequence for endorsing the suitability of someone to possess a firearm. I hope Illinois makes an example this fellow so future endorsements aren't made so blithely.
It probably won't happen via the Republican Party. Even a hint of a GOP pol supporting "red flag laws" will get that pol voted out of office, due to the reactionary nature of the base.
Wish that I did not believe you correct here.
We can solve this problem in less than a decade. Just double the budget for law enforcement. Force DA's to enforce the laws as written and quadruple the allowable capacity of jail cells.
If you double law enforcement budget and quadruple jail capacity, you also have to hire more prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. Clerks, courtrooms, bailiffs, IT people also are needed. You’re basically creating a police state and a fertile environment for moldy trial lawyers, bail bondsmen, and the rest of the bacterial legal circus to grow in. Better hire Eliot Ness types too, because large police states tend to go sideways into corruption. But that definitely would solve the gun problem for sure.
When I said law enforcement budget, I foresaw these additional resource requirements in a large part. Probably not getting it all, like IT, but agree with what you said. I think it would fix the root cause, not the gun problem. There I go stealing ideas from Kamy, sorry. The gun violence escalation is due in a large part to the breakdown of society not the number of guns in America. Granted, the breakdown in society is not wholly the result of the law enforcement breakdown. Problems like family unit breakdown, education system breakdown and others are also major contributors but if we go with the law enforcement idea it will also scoop up members of society that propagate these morally corrupt ideas. As to your police state comment, I acknowledge the risk but find that risk is a lesser evil than the evil of a morally corrupt society which we have, in a large part, today.
Which "morally corrupt" things are you gonna outlaw and jail people for exactly?
I would start with the things that are against the law today.
Like what, specifically? Gonna throw more people in jail for drug addiction, mental instability, etc? That doesn't treat the root cause at all.
To be fair, I did not say that morally corrupt people that did not break the law should be arrested and imprisoned.
So, I get the feeling that you don't agree with my idea, fine, lots of space below for you to lay out your fine idea.
I read somewhere that a constitution, like ours, that guarantees individual freedoms and the right to self-determination, requires honorable citizens of good will to be workable. It appears that greed and envy and laziness have become the dominant traits in our society. Career politicians and the nanny state have not helped.
Let’s choose to hope that a quiet majority of good citizens still exist to be worthy of the federal republic we have inherited.
I hope so but the trend seems to be in the wrong direction. I'm not encouraged by our education system.