Originally Puerto Rican National Guard, then Army Reserve and Alaskan National Guard, followed by general discharge in August for “unsatisfactory performance”, according to this article:
UPDATE: Fort Lauderdale shooter served in Alaska Army National Guard
There was initial confusion when we first read the news. A Broward County Sheriff (last name Israel) was repeatedly being quoted.
I read “Israel said” and couldn’t figure out why a foreign country was commenting on specifics of a domestic shooting.
Anyone else?
The gun is of course going to be an issue brought up as it always is. An additional wrinkle is that it is now coming out he had a domestic violence history and there was a restraining order in effect. By federal law he is prohibited from owning a firearm. If someone else provided the firearm there may be additional arrests.
The gun had been taken from him by authorities (FBI?) when he went in for psychiatric evaluation and returned to him. If you’re correct about the law then someone dropped the ball.
I’m very correct about the law. Look up the Lautenberg Ammendment. What I’m not sure about are the accuracy of the reports of his domestic violence history.
CNN is reporting that he pled no contest, and that the charges would have been dismissed in March under a deferred prosecution process, if he complied with conditions and there were no further episodes.
Loach, would that count as a conviction for the federal law?
In the same CNN article, it says that he went in for a voluntary psych exam and the police took the gun for safekeeping. When he was released from the psych exam with no further action being taken, the police had no legal basis to hold the gun and returned it to him.
Reading that article further, I think I see the answer to the question I asked Loach:
If he hadn’t been adjudicated a felon under the deferred prosecution agreement, wouldn’t that mean that the Lautenberg law wouldn’t apply, so no ban on possession of firearms?
When referencing Lautenberg it’s mostly to discuss misdemeanor domestic violence or other restraining orders, not necessarily felons or adjudications of mental defect. There are many ways to be a prohibited person. The criteria under Lautenberg are just some. To answer your question, it would not count as a conviction, however there are other mechanisms to become a prohibited person.
Whether the shooter was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or subject to a restraining order isn’t clear to me.
The purpose of the Lautenberg amendment is to prohibit firearm possession from those convicted of a violent domestic violence offense* even if it is a misdemeanor such as simple assault. Many laws already prohibit felons from owning guns. This is an exception specifically for domestic violence. It also prohibits firearm possession if there is a restraining order in effect. A story I read said there was a current restraining order. I’m not sure if that’s true. If he was the subject of a restraining order or if he was convicted of violent offense he should be prohibited. If it was plea bargained to a non-violent offense it would not be under Lautenberg. Also if the restraining order was dropped.
*Not redundant. Domestic “Violence” statutes often contain non-violent offenses such as burglary and harassment, depending on the state.
Here’s an article about how domestic abusers frequently get to keep their guns.
The exceptions named in that article don’t include Alaska so it’s not really relevant.
In this case it looks like he was in some sort of pre-trial intervention program for his assault arrest. If he got through the time period without any other issues the charges would be dropped. It’s pretty standard and done with the cooperation of the victim. In my state they wouldn’t even think of giving back his guns until that period was over. I’m not sure what the law is in Alaska. I have not seen definitively if there was a restraining order in effect.
Of course it’s relevant. It often comes down to individual state laws and practices.
And in this thread we are talking about one particular state, Alaska. Your cite doesn’t mention Alaska as one of the states with loopholes to the Lautenberg Amendment so it’s not relevant to this incident.
Is this source all that reliable? It seems a bit… bloggy.
They’re a conservative “watchdog” group. The exclamation point in their tagline should tell you all you need to know.
ETA: Not to say the dude didn’t convert to Islam, I have no idea. Nor do I care.
From ABC news:
Since the attack, investigators recovered his computer from a pawn shop, and the FBI is examining it to determine whether the alleged shooter created a jihadist identity for himself using the name Aashiq Hammad, according to officials familiar with the case.
That’s quite a bit different from what the other site reported. “Airport Shooter Converted to Islam, Identified as Aashiq Hammad Years Before Joining Army”
It makes me wonder what they’d pin on me considering my recent confession to trolling. I had two completely separate identities with two different religions back in those days! I guess it’s a good thing neither was Muslim.