The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is. . . .

[Burning Petard]

Andy, I think I know the militia membership of this father and son: the militia made up of all able-bodied white males between the ages of 17 and 45. Clearly this group is not well regulated.

snailgate.

[Econoline]

Perhaps they're "regulated" in the sense of "taking a laxative every day"???

[Joe Guy]

A well regulated militia requires men of good fiber.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In the good old days, the jury could have ordered fries with that

[Lord Jim]

Apparently there are some criminal charges that dear old dad could face:

In July 2017, Reinking was arrested for attempting to get into the White House, according to police records.

After that episode, authorities in Illinois revoked his gun license and confiscated four firearms, including what police said was the rifle used in the Waffle House shooting. The guns were given to his father, who told police he would lock up and keep them away from his son.[A procedure that should be eliminated; what is the rationale for giving the guns to a family member if they aren't the owner of the firearms?] But the father, from Tazewell County, Illinois, 130 miles southwest of Chicago, eventually returned the weapons to his son, Nashville police said on Sunday.

Marcus Watson, an agent with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said Reinking's father, Jeffrey, could face federal charges if he knowingly transferred weapons to a person who was prohibited from owning them. The father was not immediately available for comment.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/0 ... /23418983/

I have no idea what the potential criminal penalties there are for " knowingly transferred weapons to a person who was prohibited from owning them" but they should be very severe. (Though I suspect they aren't as severe as they should be; especially if the firearms are subsequently used for a crime as heinous as this.)

And you can also mark me down for favoring every last penny Reinking Sr. has going to the survivors and families of those murdered as a result of the carnage he enabled...

Complete financial ruin is the very least this bastard should face...

[Big RR]

I googled this and it looks like the penalty is up to 10 years in prsion; there is probably a state law government this as well. the problem is what constitutes "knowingly", but let's hope the prosecutors can meet this burden.

as for why they are returned to family members, my guess is because the police don't want to store them; I haven't seen the law, but it is likely that it says ones guns can be seized for various reasons, and will be returned when the "problem" no longer exists. Giving them to family members with the stipulation that they not be returned until authorized by the courts relieves the police of the burden of storage, kind of like letting a family member take a drunk drivers car out of lockup.

[Lord Jim]

it looks like the penalty is up to 10 years in prsion

That's actually better than I thought it would be, especially since that probably would be on a per firearm basis, and I believe there were three involved here...

On the other other hand once you figure in all the things that will work in his favor; the sentencing guidelines, first offender status, the fact that he'll likely have a first rate lawyer, etc., it will probably be lucky if he wound up with even as much as five years in the pen...

the problem is what constitutes "knowingly", but let's hope the prosecutors can meet this burden.

Hopefully that aspect would be pretty much a slam-dunk, since presumably Senior had to sign some paperwork laying out the terms in order to get the guns...

Of course it's highly questionable that the Trump-Sessions Justice Department will even pursue a case like this, so it may be moot and state charges may be the best one could hope for...

[BoSoxGal]

Police don’t want the responsibility of storing the weapons, and most owner/offenders don’t want them to have it, either - they’ll designate a family member or friend to take possession in their stead. That individual has to affirm to the court that s/he will not return the weapons to the owner/offender until lawful. It’s a private property rights issue, unlikely to be curtailed in the current climate, but we’ll see. Many states have DUI laws that mandate forfeiture of vehicles to the ownership of the state, and law enforcement uses or auctions the vehicles as necessary - however in practice they often don’t pursue the vehicle because taking possession and storing it until sale is more costly then the value of the vehicle. Firearms can also be taken by law in connection with certain drug cases, and law enforcement usually does pursue that both for reasons of safety and the value of firearms is generally stable.

This case will hinge on the language of the court in removing the murderer’s firearms; was it specific to his residence in Illinois? Was it time limited? Etc. From what I’ve read, this kid had very serious problems and his parents clearly dropped the ball in failing to get him help - now his life is ruined, along with many other people’s lives who loved the people he slaughtered. I certainly hope his father loses all his material wealth.

[Big RR]

Re DUI, I had a case a while back where the wife picked up the car and the released offender (still drunk) took it from the driveway and was caught again. The municipal prosecutor originally wanted to charge her with a DUI as well (for "letting" a drunk person drive the vehicle--especially because she signed a document saying she would not let that person drive until sober (I don't recall the exact wording)), but we were able to get it reduced by showing she was a victim of domestic violence and had no control over the actions of her husband, but it could have been much worse. We probably could have won at trial, but that could have cost a lot more.