16 Jan

Had Sheriff Clarence Dupnik done this, six people would still be alive

                                       

And Gabby Giffords would not have taken a bullet to the head.

In a fit of rage the CEO of a weapons training company, angered by the potential confiscation of American guns, posted a Youtube video in which he threatened to kill people:

The head of firearms training company who took to YouTube and Facebook this week to threaten a murderous response to any attempt on the Obama administration’s part to “ban assault rifles and impose stricter gun control” has had his handgun carry permit suspended by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security for presenting “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.”

James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, appeared in a video this Wednesday, in which he seemed pretty damn sincere about his intention to “start killing people” over gun control.

In the video, since removed but preserved elsewhere, Yeager claims “Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control.”

Subsequently, his gun permit was revoked:

In its statement concerning the rescinding of Yeager’s handgun permit, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security said Yeager’s comments “were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention.”

“The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public’s safety,” writes Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

It reminds us that someone else posted YouTube videos:

In a series of YouTube videos, a person identifying himself as Jared Lee Loughner complains about government mind control, treasonous laws, illiterate dreamers and the U.S. currency.

“The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” the person wrote in one of the videos, which contain music and white text on a black background.

“No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver. No, I won’t trust in God.”

The postings describe no coherent political ideology, said Mark Potok, an investigator with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks violent extremists. Loughner was not in the Center’s database of hate groups and radicals.

“He certainly sounds like he’s gone off the deep end, but at the same time, he is mouthing some rhetoric that is quite reminiscent of the anti-government movement … It’s hard to know what to make of his ideology.”

Jared Loughner had mental problems and it was no secret:

The best-known evidence of Loughner’s mental issues comes from Pima Community College, where he was suspended last year apparently because of mental problems. The college informed him that he could return only if he obtained “a mental health clearance indicating that, in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the college does not present a danger to himself or others.”

Dupnik, the local Sheriff, was more than acquainted with Loughner:

“All I can tell you is that this person may have a mental issue,”

and

Dupnik said there had been earlier contact between Loughner and law enforcement after he had made death threats, although they had not been against Giffords. He said the authorities believe he may not have been working alone.

and

Loughner, 22, who is in law enforcement custody, lives near the scene of the shooting, which killed six people and injured at least a dozen others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said there’s reason to believe Loughner has “a mental issue” and described him as “unhinged.” Dupnik said he believed Giffords was the target of the attack.

“As we understand it, there have been law enforcement contacts with the individual where he made threats to kill,” Dupnik said during a press conference Saturday evening. But he wouldn’t say who those threats were aimed at.

and

In September, after Mr. Loughner had an outburst over a biology grade that left his instructor “visibly upset,” one officer wrote, Mr. Loughner’s “head was constantly tilted to the left and his eyes were jittery and looking up and to the left.”

Another officer called to the scene wrote, “By taking the extra time through repeated explanation I was eventually able to communicate with Mr. Loughner that his actions in the classroom were disruptive and not permitted,” adding, “It was clear that he was unable to fully understand his actions.”

Death threats. Unhinged. What the hell was Dupnik thinking? These are crimes. Aren’t they enough to put someone on the prohibited list? Perhaps not.

Persons subject to prohibition

Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Making death threats in Pima county netted a year’s probation for a man making death threats.

That’s not enough to to be placed on the prohibited list, but had Dupnik arrested Loughner for making death threats it’s extremely likely he would have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, which is precisely what happened.

And that should have gotten Loughner on the NICS prohibited list. It has been speculated that Loughner got to skate because his mother worked for Pima County and may have personally known Sheriff Dupnik.

Gabby Giffords got to address Jared Loughner at his sentencing. She should also have thanked Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for his contribution to the tragedy. Dupnik might as well have put the gun in Loughner’s hand that day. The system is only as good as the people in it.

Mental illness and weapons is an issue that has to be taken seriously. It’d be crazy not to.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Law Enforcement, Mass Murders, Politics, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, January 16th, 2013 at 4:51 am
| 840 views

8 Responses to Had Sheriff Clarence Dupnik done this, six people would still be alive

  1. Kevin says: 1

    (1) Hypothetically, if person X simply said that he would shoot anyone who tries to take his guns from him, would that warrant revoking his gun permit?

    (2) If all the state does is revoke a permit and not confiscate his guns, would such a measure even be effective against criminal intent?

    ReplyReply
  2. DrJohn says: 2

    @Kevin:

    (1) Hypothetically, if person X simply said that he would shoot anyone who tries to take his guns from him, would that warrant revoking his gun permit?

    It was sufficient for Tennessee to rescind his carry permit, but it does sound like a dangerous undertaking, does it not?

    (2) If all the state does is revoke a permit and not confiscate his guns, would such a measure even be effective against criminal intent?

    It would seem unlikely.

    ReplyReply
  3. Kevin says: 3

    @DrJohn: Yes, taking Yeager’s guns does seem dangerous, while revoking his permit seems like a much safer, indirect step toward calling his bluff and chilling similar speech.

    But I meant my question to be moral: i.e. should the threat by a law abiding citizen to “shoot anyone who tries to take his guns” result in revocation or confiscation of those guns?

    Overall, I’m not quite sure what you are arguing for in this piece. Are you saying that the failure to enforce the law against Loughner justifies Tennessee to be more vigilant about Yeager? Should gun permits be required in AZ to make it easier to revoke their 2A as it is in TN? Or is Yeager an example of gun permit power being abused, and the federal prohibitions are sufficient if only their lead up were prosecuted in AZ?

    ReplyReply
  4. Hard Right says: 4

    Dupnik failed to do his job and then out of bigotry blamed guns and the GOP for the Gifford’s shooting. Disgusting.

    ReplyReply
  5. Skook says: 5

    Will the “threat” to shoot someone who tries to rape or kidnap family members be a reason to take away weapons or rescind a permit or is such a statement justified by the circumstance of the perceived threat?

    Under Obama Care, will a massage therapist or hypnotherapist be required to report a possible threatening situation with a patient and his “fascination” with weapons or is it the highly skilled GP who is only qualified to recognize perceived threats.

    Should a dentist become concerned when he exposes a nerve on a gun collector and call in the feds, just in case?

    How many health care professionals are trained and knowledgeable in the field of weaponry and the possibility of attack?

    Oh sure, if someone says he is planning to kill someone, that can be presumed to be a threat, but what of the more innocuous threats, like the gun owner who says, “That Obama is a damned crook.” Many Liberal Health Care Professionals would be like the Big Simpleton, Napolitano and write off this person as a potential threat. This is this wonderful new health care and gun snitch law we have being forced down our throats, with required yearly visits and the necessary psychological checks by self-righteous nincompoops who are doing work they have no training or certification to perform.

    ReplyReply
  6. Nan G says: 6

    Death threats. Unhinged. What the hell was Dupnik thinking? These are crimes. Aren’t they enough to put someone on the prohibited list?

    Perhaps none of those things matter if the Obama administration carries on with its no-read paperwork policy.
    Did you know what Biden said about people who are on a ”prohibitied list?”
    BIDEN: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box….”
    See?
    All one has to do is LIE and one is home free!
    This is also true for Food Stamps, for Welfare, for $50,000 in Pigford cash (if you SAY you are black and farmed) and many more Obama LAZY-paperpushers allow it all.

    ReplyReply
  7. Ditto says: 7

    Persons subject to prohibition….

    ….Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship…

    I put my head in my hands and groaned when I heard of the secession petitions submitted to the White House. This was what I found disconcerting in considering those individuals who signed the various petitions. I thought that it might have been a stupid, useless gesture but that it also might put the signatories in danger of having the Obama Administration consider their signing on as being equitable with renouncing their U.S. citizenship. It seemed to me that was a poorly thought out campaign. It is not wise to give your opponent something they can use legally against you to make you irrelevant.

    Rather than a petition, they should have made it a poll of voters, (registered in the state,) simply asking those polled “whether the state should secede from the union.” but not a demanding secession. This poll should make it clear that the signatories do not renounce their us or state citizenship in participating in this poll. Such a poll should be delivered to the officers of your state, not the federal government.

    ReplyReply
  8. Vaughan says: 8

    I subscribe to Yeager’s youtube channel. There is some good info there. But that outburst? Utterly moronic. There are a load of ways to intelligently protest and even outright refuse to obey, but his rant?
    Talk about giving ammo to the enemy! And as for his school? I don’t think I would want to take instruction from someone with so little self control.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>