Surprise, registeres democrat and bernie bumper sticker on truck.

Online scrub almost complete.

No motive yet, but he lived in a shack without running water or power.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Oh, well, if the address didn't show up on GPS I guess there was nothing they could have done... A MONTH AGO. Threatened to kill a person? No red flag there... at least not one worthy of investigation if no GPS address. He also called 911 and the FBI and left "rambling" messages. Apparently law enforcement has NOW been able to find his property and is "investigating" post murder spree. smh. Meanwhile a veteran states that if he is attacked by Antifa he will use lethal force to defend himself... his guns are gone.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/neighbor-of-texas-gunman-says-he-threatened-her-with-rifle-last-month

The neighbor of the west Texas shooter said he threatened her with a large rifle last month, but claims police never responded.

Veronica Alonzo told CNN that the 36-year-old gunman came up to her house with the weapon and yelled at her after she had left trash in a nearby dumpster. She also explained how he would routinely fire off shots from a structure on top of his house into his yard at night, often retrieving dead animals after.

Alonzo reported the incident to police, but claimed they never responded because the address of the property doesn't register in on GPS and is difficult to locate.

Former Secret Service agent Jonathan Wacrow called the shooter's actions toward Alonzo "behavioral red flags" and wondered why police reportedly failed to act during a CNN interview on Sunday.

"The fact that a neighbor called the police on this one incident, and they didn’t act, that has to be fully investigated," he said. "That's what we always talk about here at this desk in the aftermath of these crisis situations when we look back at who these people are, and we say, 'Look, we clearly see there was a leading indicator of the propensity for violence.'"

He added, "We need to stop that along that behavioral continuum before someone transcends into an act of mass shooting and it creates these horrific events."

And 2x felon

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

And 2x felon

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Source? I've only seen 2 misdemeanors, which wouldn't make him a prohibited person (unless they were for domestic violence, and they weren't). Several articles say he once failed a background check, but no reason for the denial was given. With over 90% of failed background checks being false positives, it's rather likely it was a "mistake".

My mistake.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms.
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, generally prohibits the sale of firearms to
any person who:

- Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;

- Is a fugitive from justice;

- Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
  -- Though certain states have legalized the use of medical and recreational marijuana, it remains illegal under
federal law. Therefore, ATF considers people who use marijuana legally under state law unlawful users of a
controlled substance.

- Is underage;

- Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

- Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;

- Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;

- Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;

- Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner,
his or her child or a child of a partner, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or

- Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.

Dallas paper today said that shooter was disqualified from owning firearms in TX due to his arrest/convictions.  Even if misdemeanors.

This all happened shortly after he was fired.  He even called police at the work place, for what ever reason.  But left before they showed up.  He also called the FBI and was rambling on about non-sense.  Just so happened he was pulled over by local police.

So red flag law after getting fired?

Here's one report this morning:

Online court records showed Ator was arrested in 2001 for a misdemeanor offense that would not have prevented him from buying firearms legally in Texas.

Police said the arrest took place in the county where Waco is located, hundreds of miles east of Odessa. Online court records showed he was charged then with misdemeanor criminal trespassing and evading arrest. He entered guilty pleas in a deferred prosecution agreement wherein the charge was waived after he served 24 months of probation, according to records.

Federal law, The Associated Press reported, defined nine categories that legally would prevent a person from owning a gun. The categories included being convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor domestic violence charge, being adjudicated as a "mental defect" or being committed to a mental institution, being the subject of a restraining order or having an active warrant. Investigators have said Ator had no active warrants at the time of the shooting.

Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted Monday that Ator didn't go through a background check for the weapon he used in Odessa. He did not elaborate, and a spokesman referred questions to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

* * * * *
Wonder why they're not revealing how he got the gun he used? Bought it using a "loophole", like "off the internet", and don't want to inspire copycats?

Will this now be sufficient grounds for issuing a red flag confiscation order?

Rocio Gutierrez, who lived next to gunman Seth Ator in Odessa, told The Associated Press this week that Ator often would fire at animals, mostly rabbits, at all hours of the night.

"We were afraid of him because you could tell what kind of person he was just by looking at him," Gutierrez said. "He was not nice, he was not friendly, he was not polite."

This all happened shortly after he was fired.  He even called police at the work place, for what ever reason.  But left before they showed up.  He also called the FBI and was rambling on about non-sense.  Just so happened he was pulled over by local police.

So red flag law after getting fired?

His coworkers or employer was saying that he appeared to be acting funny even before he was fired. Hard to say of course but firing may or may not have played a roll.

The news is saying that the background check initially prevented him from buying a firearm and that he was able to get it through a private sale.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-shooter-purchased-assault-style-weapon-in-private-sale-evaded-background-check-2019-09-03/

This is going to be a pretty strong argument for universal background checks and I have to say I kind of agree. Having background checks only at gun stores is like a net with huge holes. In this particular case a universal background check system may have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. If you are only going to have background checks at gun stores you might as well not have any background checks at all.

This case is also looking to be one to make a strong argument for a red flag type law. He was apparently exhibiting a number of legitimate red flags and reportedly had been deemed unfit (no specifics given in article). I don't know whether any one person knew about all the issues or not so maybe no one could have seen the puzzle for what it was but this incident will still be convincing to many that we need red flag laws.

The news is saying that the background check initially prevented him from buying a firearm and that he was able to get it through a private sale.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-shooter-purchased-assault-style-weapon-in-private-sale-evaded-background-check-2019-09-03/

This is going to be a pretty strong argument for universal background checks and I have to say I kind of agree. Having background checks only at gun stores is like a net with huge holes. In this particular case a universal background check system may have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. If you are only going to have background checks at gun stores you might as well not have any background checks at all.

This case is also looking to be one to make a strong argument for a red flag type law. He was apparently exhibiting a number of legitimate red flags and reportedly had been deemed unfit (no specifics given in article). I don't know whether any one person knew about all the issues or not so maybe no one could have seen the puzzle for what it was but this incident will still be convincing to many that we need red flag laws.

If any "red flag laws" are enacted, the law should be able to get the person completely off the streets, arrested, and observed to determine if the person is indeed dangerous.  This should include the person being able to face their accuser(s) in a court immediately, as well as harsh punishment for making any false claims.  Due process should not, and never, be abandoned.  Removing people's rights behind closed doors goes against the basis for this country. Might as well turn into a dictatorship otherwise.  We're getting too damn close as it is.

The news is saying that the background check initially prevented him from buying a firearm and that he was able to get it through a private sale.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-shooter-purchased-assault-style-weapon-in-private-sale-evaded-background-check-2019-09-03/

This is going to be a pretty strong argument for universal background checks and I have to say I kind of agree. Having background checks only at gun stores is like a net with huge holes. In this particular case a universal background check system may have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. If you are only going to have background checks at gun stores you might as well not have any background checks at all.

This case is also looking to be one to make a strong argument for a red flag type law. He was apparently exhibiting a number of legitimate red flags and reportedly had been deemed unfit (no specifics given in article). I don't know whether any one person knew about all the issues or not so maybe no one could have seen the puzzle for what it was but this incident will still be convincing to many that we need red flag laws.

There's no other way to obtain a firearm besides retail and legit private party sales?

No way he could have stolen one?  Borrowed one from a friend or family member -- with or without permission?  No such animal as the "black market?"

No way for him to buy a gun via private seller without the mandated (hypothetical) universal background check?  How does the state/feds intend to enforce that requirement BEFORE THE FACT?  Once the soon-to-be-killer has the gun from someone who decides to forego the background check, the dead gunman can't be punished, and the seller can always claim it was stolen.

These are rhetorical questions.

Laws don't prevent crimes.

(Now is the time you admonish me for not having a workable solution, and that even a bad solution that is massively expensive and solves no real problems is "doing something".)

If any "red flag laws" are enacted, the law should be able to get the person completely off the streets, arrested, and observed to determine if the person is indeed dangerous.  This should include the person being able to face their accuser(s) in a court immediately.  Due process should not, and never, be abandoned.  Removing people's rights behind closed doors goes against the basis for this country. Might as well turn into a dictatorship otherwise.  We're getting too damn close as it is.

Agreed.

What are they gonna say when some crazy guy kills 8 people with a knife and had a bunch of red flags? "Nope, sorry we only try to stop crazy people who own firearms, no one else."

I think all red flag seizures should come with a 48 hour time limit as this is the standard that police have to file charges against a person when they are arrested.

There's no other way to obtain a firearm besides retail and legit private party sales?

No way he could have stolen one?  Borrowed one from a friend or family member -- with or without permission?  No such animal as the "black market?"

No way for him to buy a gun via private seller without the mandated (hypothetical) universal background check?  How does the state/feds intend to enforce that requirement BEFORE THE FACT?  Once the soon-to-be-killer has the gun from someone who decides to forego the background check, the dead gunman can't be punished, and the seller can always claim it was stolen.

These are rhetorical questions.[/quote]


I think anyone who can think critically will recognize that no system would be perfect and some people would find a way around the system. However a universal background check would serve to make it more difficult to get around the system. The same argument holds true to requiring ID to vote.

Even if there were universal background checks in place, the shooter may have found a private seller who didn't care but it would be harder to find such a sale when compared to no background check at all where the private seller has no idea whether the person can legally buy a firearm. 

Laws don't prevent crimes.

They do prevent some people from partaking in activities though. There are many things I don't do because of the laws against them. Marijuana is not hard to find in Hawaii but it is even easier to find in a state like Washington where it is legal.

(Now is the time you admonish me for not having a workable solution, and that even a bad solution that is massively expensive and solves no real problems is "doing something".)

I would be happy to hear any solution you have on preventing these types of shooters.

No way he could have stolen one?  Borrowed one from a friend or family member -- with or without permission?  No such animal as the "black market?"

No way for him to buy a gun via private seller without the mandated (hypothetical) universal background check?  How does the state/feds intend to enforce that requirement BEFORE THE FACT?  Once the soon-to-be-killer has the gun from someone who decides to forego the background check, the dead gunman can't be punished, and the seller can always claim it was stolen.

These are rhetorical questions.


I think anyone who can think critically will recognize that no system would be perfect and some people would find a way around the system. However a universal background check would serve to make it more difficult to get around the system. The same argument holds true to requiring ID to vote.

Even if there were universal background checks in place, the shooter may have found a private seller who didn't care but it would be harder to find such a sale when compared to no background check at all where the private seller has no idea whether the person can legally buy a firearm. 


They do prevent some people from partaking in activities though. There are many things I don't do because of the laws against them. Marijuana is not hard to find in Hawaii but it is even easier to find in a state like Washington where it is legal.

I would be happy to hear any solution you have on preventing these types of shooters.

Yeah, let's equate all other laws on the books with MURDER, because we all know murder isn't that serious compared to (rolls the EEF false equivalence dice) .... smoking pot in Hawaii.

If someone is going to commit murder, please list all the laws that person is NOT willing to break.  Take all the space on here you need.

Maybe murder should be outlawed....

Hard to say of course but firing may or may not have played a roll.

what type of roll?
Kaiser? sweet?

what type of roll?
Kaiser? sweet?

I like sweet rolls with butter and heated for 20 seconds in the microwave please.

I wonder if he was on his way back to work to ice his coworkers?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk