... of the story, which is separated by a photo which makes it appear that the story ends before the photo instead of after it.
It is clear that the author wanted the focus to be on certain aspects of the story that aided their own agenda and bias. Otherwise this important bit of information would not have been buried in the article at the very end. (just my observation)
After the photo --
"Indiana’s “red flag” laws allow a judge to bar someone deemed dangerous from having a firearm, but it’s unclear if Hole ever had a red flag hearing, Taylor told the paper"
Question: How is it "unclear"?? Either he did or he did not? A quick search of court records should determine this to a 100% certainty one way or the other.
Due Process (or lack of it up to the time he bought the new guns) appears to be the reason his name was not, in fact, flagged in order to prevent him from being able to legally buy new guns.
Simply having had your weapons confiscated by law enforcement alone is not, if I am understanding the article, sufficient to have someone's right to own or purchase guns terminated. I believe the issue has to be adjudicated by a court with a ruling determining that the person, for mental reasons, or any other reasons prescribed by the law, should not be allowed to posses or purchase guns and/or other weapons. Until such a determination by a court, under our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty and retains their rights.
* IF he had not yet had a red flag hearing, then I would say the red flag laws should be revisited to ensure a timely process for such hearings for both the safety of the person and others, as well as the defendant's right to a speedy trial.
* IF he did have such a trial and was found guilty, then the issue of reporting such trial results in order for the person's name to be added to the list to stop him from being able to purchase a gun when a background check is preformed would need to be seriously overhauled in order that the intended results would be achieved in a timely fashion.
I am not saying that he should have been able to purchase new guns; given his obvious mental instability, clearly someone close to him should have noticed and did more than they did. Although possible, I cannot imagine that he did not show one or both of them to someone or at the very least tell someone that he had them.
Maybe we should require our elected officials to actually read each and every bill they vote on so a bill is not passed just because it has a nice poll tested label but does not actually do what the average person thinks it is supposed to do? |
