USA Today
A monthslong investigation found that no state or federal laws were broken when a police sergeant sold a firearm and magazines to a 19-year-old mentally ill man in July.
The report, released Wednesday, said that neither former Reno Sgt. Laura Conklin nor the man, who was later identified as prohibited from legally owning a gun, violated the law. When first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal, the case reignited debates across the country on whether the law should require background checks for private party sales.
The man had responded to an ad on armslist.com and met Conklin at a downtown Reno Starbucks at 4 a.m. on July 2. After learning about the gun, the young man's mother, Jill Schaller, became distraught and contacted officials because her son has Asperger's syndrome and is periodically suicidal.
Schaller demanded that he return the gun. After an emotional scene involving Washoe County Sheriff's deputies, Conklin bought the gun back.
Schaller filed a complaint, and the Reno Police Department's Internal Affairs division investigated whether Conklin violated any policies. Chief Steve Pitts also asked the Sparks Police Department to review the case for any possible charges. The investigation was completed this week and the report made public. "Through my investigation, I have found that according to state and federal law, Laura Conklin is not required to perform a background check on an individual wishing to obtain a firearm via private party transfer," Sparks Police Detective Tony Marconato said in his report.
"who was later identified as prohibited from legally owning a gun"
ReplyDeleteYou mean that it was legal to sell a gun to someone who had not been made a prohibited person yet?!? She didn't have to know everything about him and know that he was going to become a prohibited person in the future?!?
How can this BE?
This can be because you so-called lawful and responsible gun owners take advantage of the private sale loophole and you don't give a fuck about the person on the receiving end. You guys are law-abiding in name only.
DeleteSee below...
DeleteI may have missed it, but I saw nothing in the article that said that this young man has been adjudicated mentally insane. Asperger's Syndrome, by itself, shouldn't disquality a person from owning a firearm, and Mama wasn't listed as a qualified mental health professional.
ReplyDeleteBut in the endless quest to remove guns from society, any excuse will do for a gun control freak.
You're really defending this stupid cop who sold a gun to a person that was so obviously unfit that anyone could see it? As usual, you don't give a fuck about what's right, only about what you can get away with due to the lax gun laws.
DeleteUnlike you bigots, I don't say that someone with Autism is automatically disqualified from exercising basic rights.
DeleteOr blind people, right. You also support the gun rights of wife-beaters and other violent criminals who've not yet sustained the necessary convictions. You are a champion of rights.
DeleteYes, Mike. We support the rights of those without convictions, such as their right to not be in prison--kinda like the ACLU does. You, on the other hand, risk bursting into flames every time you talk about liberty and against government overreach.
DeleteBut your comment is a smokescreen to distract from the issue Greg raised: Are you seriously suggesting disarming everyone who is diagnosed with Aspergers?
Please--Do explain!
You know what I stand for. My number 1 gun control law calls for physical. psychological and eye tests.
DeleteWe know that's all you say you want (of course, we don't know where you'll "evolve" next).
DeleteThat being said, your shifting to talking about licensing and psych exams is changing the subject again from your claim that a person with Aspergers is so obviously disqualified that the cop should have realized it immediately.
Mikeb, stop lying about me. I want to see wife beaters spend a long stretch in prison. But until a person is convicted, the government has no place infringing on that person's rights.
DeleteAnd stop deflecting. You call for psychological testing, as though that means anything. What specifically are you looking to screen out? Are you saying that someone on the autism spectrum is automatically disqualified? If so, why? Do you have anything beyond your usual bigotry?
As Tennesean says, even if she had performed a background check, it appears the sale would have been approved. This portion of the article suggests that the buyer's name wasn't listed as a prohibited person.
ReplyDelete"Marconato's report also said that during his investigation, he made sure that the young man's name was placed on a list of people who are prohibited from having guns."
That may be true, but it's also true that the stupid cop didn't do the due diligence that you guys claim you do when selling guns. His condition would have been an obvious disqualifier to anyone reasonable.
DeleteWhy, Mikeb?
DeleteHow many people with Aspergers do you know, Mike? It's not something that is always apparent. There's no funny look about the face. There's social awkwardness, but not necessarily any antisocial behavior or link to depression, etc. There is a somewhat obsessive amount of detail put into the study of what interests them, so an Aspie that likes guns is liable to be VERY knowledgable about them, and therefore comfortable talking about them, handling them, etc., so that the aforementioned social awkwardness may not even be an issue in the meeting.
DeleteBut sure, keep claiming she should have known and demanding that she be held accountable for not knowing, in advance, that he would one day be made a prohibited person. And go ahead and claim you only want common sense, easily followed gun laws and don't want anything that's too complicated to be complied with.
Anyone who sells a gun on Armslist is an irresponsible asshole, period.
DeleteAh, so now you're going to run away, throw poo at Armslist, and hope people forget that you want to disarm all people with Aspergers--and on top of that you think you can identify them immediately on meeting them.
DeleteWhat I want to do away with is private sales with no background checks. Then, once we get that done, we can implement my number 1 gun control law which calls for thorough testing before issuing a gun owner's license. If your poor persecuted Aspergers sufferers, whom it seems you've suddenly adopted as a cause, can pass all the tests, then they can own guns.
DeleteAll these tests that are to you a magical black box whose contents are unknown but that will yield definitive answers?
DeleteEven the most cursory testing would screen out the worst of the worst. Why would you oppose that? You want guys like Cho and Loughner to qualify for gun ownership?
DeleteDumb question. Of course you do. You want blind people to own and use guns as well as 96-year-old ladies with dementia. All in the name of freedom, but really in order to not inconvenience yourself one little bit.
And you continue to obfuscate by throwing in other pet issues and talking about people who could have and even should have been found mentally unfit under our current system.
DeleteAll to distract from your making fun of people with Aspergers and your foolish statements that Aspergers should disqualify someone from owning a gun and that it should be apparent to anyone speaking to the person.
Why don't you want to defend your earlier statements?
Mikeb, imposing psychological testing for the exercise of a basic right is bad policy and sets a bad precedent. This is also an example of how you characterize a large group by the actions of a tiny few.
DeleteMaybe little boys who still live with their parents should be prohibited from owning guns.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I really can't speak to the issue of owning guns. Records are your best entertainment value.
To each his own.
Delete