Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Was the Illinois Shooter Allowed to Buy a Gun?

Posted by DnA , The Carpetbagger Report at 7:59 AM on February 18, 2008.


Both the Illinois and Virginia Tech killers bought equipment used in their shootings from companies owned by the same online dealer.
aleqm5i28tiwzzuwj8zome4b5i2x1wkkw
Eric Thompson, owner of The Gun Source, a Green Bay-based Internet gun store, poses for a photo in Green Bay, Wis in this April 19, 2007 file photo. Thompson said Friday, Feb. 15, 2008 that his web site, which sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter in April 1007, also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five at Northern Illinois University on Thursday. (AP Photo/John Touscany)

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 

Last year, Congress passed a law that was hailed as "the first major gun control legislation in a decade" in response to the Virginia Tech shootings. The legislation was supposed to close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho, who had been ordered by a judge to undergo outpatient mental health treatment, to buy a gun. The press slipped into a bipartisan rapture over the involvement of the NRA in crafting the legislation:

With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.

"We'll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn't have guns," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Atkisson.

"As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent national need to improve the background check system" to keep guns out of the hands of those barred from buying them, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

But six days before last Thursday's shooting, Stephen Kazmierczak, a former student at Northern Illinois University, walked into a gun shop in Champaign, Ill. and bought two guns he later used to kill six people and then himself in a rampage on NIU's campus. Kazmierczak, like Seung-Hui, had a history of mental illness.

The 27-year-old Kazmierczak also had a history of mental illness and had become erratic in the past two weeks after he stopped taking his medication, said university Police Chief Donald Grady.

A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said Kazmierczak had been placed there after high school by his parents. He used to cut himself and had resisted taking his medications, she said.

Kazmierczak spent more than a year at the Thresholds-Mary Hill House in the late 1990s, former house manager Louise Gbadamashi told The Associated Press. His parents placed him there after high school because he had become "unruly" at home, she said.

Gbadamashi couldn't remember any instances of him being violent, she said.

"He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she said. "That was part of the problem."

Whether or not Kazmierczak wanted to identify with being mentally ill, the issue seems to be that he didn't have to. Illinois gun laws require prospective gun buyers to apply for a permit, which is more than many states require. But when Kazmierczak filled out his application form, he simply answered "no" to the pertinent questions.

Kazmierczak, 27, held a valid permit, which he recently presented to a Champaign gun dealer to buy the guns used in the rampage, authorities said.

To obtain the permit, he had to answer "no" to this question: "Within the past five years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?"

Hardly a thorough background check.

Even more frustrating is that both Kazmierczak and Seung-Hui bought equipment used in the shootings from companies owned by the same online dealer, Eric Thompson. It's not clear whether or not Kazmierczak found out about the websites from news surrounding the Virginia Tech shooting, or whether it's simply "a coincidence".

Eric Thompson said his Web site, TopGlock.com sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide.

Another Web site run by Thompson's company, TheGunStore.com , also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.

"I'm still blown away by the coincidences," Thompson said Friday. "I'm shaking. I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this."

I'll avoid the obvious pun that could be made here at Thompson's expense. But could this possibly be a surprise? How many different things can you do with a gun?

Kazmierczak may not have been flagged under current gun control laws because private mental health records are not included in the federal database-so unlike Seung-Hui, who had been ordered by a judge to undergo treatment because two female students had complained that he had stalked them and was therefore in the system; Kazmierczak's illness was not a matter of public record because he had not been ruled mentally ill by a judge.

There seem to be at least two related problems with the existing laws that allowed Kazmierczak to buy the guns he used at NIU. The first is that Illinois laws regarding gun permits apparently don't require applicants to undergo a thorough background check. The second is that the collaborative legislation that passed the House last year doesn't identify people with a history of mental illness who haven't drawn attention to themselves from the authorities.

The issue is one of privacy. It seems impossible to respect an individual's right to keep their medical history to themselves and still have an effective database that can identify ill people who try to buy guns. At the same time, we give our medical history away when we apply to schools, and sometimes even jobs, so an argument can be made that such a history can be kept private, as long as you're not trying to buy a deadly weapon that can be used to kill scores of people.

Is it a tremendous violation of a person's individual rights for prospective gun buyers to have to give their medical history before buying a gun, as opposed to disclosure essentially being optional, as it was in Illinois? It seems like there would be some way to identify people with a history of mental health beyond those who have been "adjudicated" ill while respecting people's right to privacy.

Chuck Schumer held a press conference on Saturday vowing to close the "loopholes" in existing gun laws.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), at a news conference yesterday in Manhattan, said he and congressional colleagues plan to step up efforts to close loopholes in gun-control measures and create a federal task force to come up with national school safety guidelines. They also plan to push for congressional hearings on links between mental illness and school violence.

Why do I get the feeling the NRA might not be on board this time?

Digg!

Tagged as: virginia tech, gun control, guns

dnA is a contributing blogger to the Carpetbagger Report


FEC Decides that the First Amendment Actually Applies to Bloggers
You are now free to blog about your country ...
Post by Steven Reynolds. August 20, 2008.
DOJ Preparing to Charge Six Blackwater Guards in Nisour Square Massacre
Indictments for the killing of 17 Iraqis would likely be sought under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which would be unprecedented.
Post by Nick Fiske. August 19, 2008.
Act Now: Tell Texas Not to Execute an Innocent Man
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles will make a decision tomorrow in the case of Jeff Wood, who faces execution for killing no one.
Post by Liliana Segura. August 18, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I Hope These Purveyors Of Death Are Sleeping Well
Posted by: rgoalierob on Feb 18, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think "A well regulated militia" as the Second Ammendment states, means crazy people.
By the way, it's only a sport if the animals can shoot back, so quit calling youselves "Sportsmen".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You know what I think is funny Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» I'm curious Posted by: ReallyBearish
» I don't call myself a sportsman Posted by: meetmeineleusis
No history..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 18, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He had no history of violent behavior outside of, if it even qualifies, cutting himself. As a person who takes medication for mental health issues I would be worried about some of the assumptions made about such people in this article and the general tone taken in relation to this incident. I have no history of violence and am on medication. Should I not be allowed to own a firearm? Where do we draw a line?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No history.. Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: No history.. Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: No history.. Posted by: VZEQICVA
Word Of Caution
Posted by: QQOblivion on Feb 18, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I strongly agree with the idea of back-ground checks, I should issue a word of caution. I myself have been in a mental hospital -- nothing major, only a couple weeks. And I am NOT in any way violent.
So I come to this issue from this perspective. I would actually like the idea of a federal database consisting of the names of people who, because of their mental history, should not buy guns. But consider who is running the executive branch right now. Since when have they used a database of citizens to be watched in any way responsibly?
My fear is that such a database would be used by the government to determine who should be singled out for special surveillance, despite the actual histories of violence and nonviolence of those people listed in the database.
Maybe someday my phone will be bugged, if it isn't already. Maybe someday I will not be able to fly. Maybe I will be detaineed without due-process. The list goes on.
So I would urge lawmakers to put into effect the database, yes. But PLEASE put in place safeguards that would prevent the president and his people from abusing the database's information. (Of course, the Republicans will oppose such safeguards. And if they get passed anyway then Bush will just issue a signing-statement negating the safe-guards. ...So what am I worried about??...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That being the case Posted by: ReallyBearish
We can't predict behavior.
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 18, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And probably never will be able to, until some science fiction like The Minority Report becomes true fact.

In this case, even getting Kazmierczak's permission to access the Medical Information Bureau, so that the authorities wouldn't have to take his "no" for an answer, wouldn't have done it. His year-long hospitalization was over ten years ago when he was an adolescent, and would have passed from the list. All that would be left would be a prescription for a certain kind of medication.

As you've pointed out, that's no indicator of anything, and using the taking of common psycho-active medications as a bar to buying a gun is restrictive of the rights of more law-abiding Americans than we can count.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 18, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What does it take to get a license to SELL guns? I know things vary from state to state, but this guy doesn't look old enough to sell beer in New Jersey. Do the people selling guns know how to do a background check? Everyone who goes on a shooting rampage is 'a nice guy', until we look a little closer. Which is what we shoud do before selling the guns. Sorry, it's not the drugs or bullying, it's the guns. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Every time I've ever bought a gun Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» Look closer how? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
guns
Posted by: Floresta on Feb 18, 2008 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, why is this story such Big News???
Coming from a newspapering family, I know part of the answer, if it bleeds, it leads...but this is really at some level about fostering more fear and creating false frames about the 'gun' issue.
Will some so-called crazy people/persons have access to guns, yup. Will so-called criminals have access to guns, yup.
And so will I. When the govt dis arms, I'll consider giving up mine, but until then all bets are off.
BTW, I am a progressive-liberal living in California, so go figure...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Anyone .... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: guns Posted by: Woodpecker
Recent activity
Posted by: fredy123456777 on Mar 4, 2008 9:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
new
Posted by: fredy123456777 on Mar 7, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No prescription necessary
Posted by: fredy123456777 on Mar 7, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]