The Shooter's Legal Violations: A Comprehensive Overview

Mass shootings are a tragic and devastating occurrence that has become all too familiar in the United States. The legal implications and responsibilities surrounding these incidents are complex and multifaceted. While the definition of a mass shooting varies, it generally refers to an incident where four or more people are shot, resulting in multiple fatalities and injuries. The legal consequences for the perpetrators of such heinous acts are severe and wide-ranging. In this discussion, we will delve into the legal framework surrounding mass shootings, examining the laws broken by the shooters and the subsequent criminal charges and penalties they face.

The shooter's background and whether it should have prevented them from purchasing a firearm

The background of a shooter and whether they should be allowed to purchase a firearm is a complex issue that depends on various factors, including the individual's history, applicable laws, and the effectiveness of enforcement. Here are some key considerations:

• Mental Health and Personal Trauma: Many shooters have a history of mental health issues or have experienced severe personal trauma. In the US, individuals with a history of involuntary commitment for mental health issues or substance abuse addiction may be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Early intervention and support services for individuals facing such challenges could play a crucial role in prevention.
• Criminal Record and History of Violence: A significant number of shooters have a prior criminal record, including violent offences such as domestic violence. Most states conduct background checks to identify such records, and individuals with certain criminal convictions are typically prohibited from purchasing firearms.
• Age and Access to Firearms: Minors under 18 are generally prohibited from possessing firearms, but this doesn't prevent them from acquiring guns through family members or illegal means. Secure storage of firearms and stricter access control are essential to preventing unauthorised use by minors.
• Gaps and Errors in Background Checks: In some cases, shooters have exploited gaps and errors in the background check system. This includes instances where relevant criminal records or mental health commitments were not submitted to the necessary databases, or where examiners failed to identify red flags during the review process.
• Private Purchases and Gun Show Loopholes: Under federal law, private sales of firearms between individuals or certain sales at gun shows are not subject to background checks. This loophole allows individuals who may not pass a background check to acquire firearms through unofficial channels.
• Military Background and Dishonourable Discharge: Individuals with a military background who have been dishonourably discharged may be prohibited from purchasing firearms. However, this restriction can be circumvented if the individual's discharge status or related criminal records are not properly reported to the relevant databases.
• Enforcement of Revocation: When an individual fails a background check or is identified as prohibited from possessing firearms, there is often a lack of enforcement to ensure they surrender their weapons. Most states allow police to seize firearms from prohibited individuals, but few have procedures to actively retrieve and remove firearms from their possession.
• Safe Storage Laws: Some states have implemented safe storage laws, requiring guns to be securely stored, particularly when children are present. These laws aim to prevent unauthorised access to firearms, especially by minors or individuals who may pose a risk to themselves or others.

In summary, while there are laws in place to restrict firearm purchases based on an individual's background, the effectiveness of these laws relies on accurate and comprehensive record-keeping, diligent enforcement, and addressing loopholes that allow unauthorised access to firearms.

The castle doctrine and the right to defend your home

The castle doctrine, also known as castle law or defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that grants a person specific protections and immunities in places they legally occupy, such as a home or automobile. This doctrine allows a person to use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves against an intruder without legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.

The castle doctrine is derived from English Common Law, which holds that "a man's house is his castle" and that he has a right to defend it. This concept was established as English law in the 17th century by jurist Sir Edward Coke, who wrote, "For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge]."

In the United States, the castle doctrine varies by state, and each state has different statutes and requirements regarding the use of force against intrusion. Most states have some variation of the castle doctrine in their laws, allowing for the use of deadly physical force in a home invasion. However, not all states have adopted the castle doctrine, and some states have justifiable homicide laws that rely on the courts to determine whether non-deadly or deadly force was necessary to defend one's home.

To use the castle doctrine as a defense, certain conditions typically apply:

• The intruder must be making or have made an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
• The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not apply to officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties).
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home.

It is important to note that the castle doctrine does not provide civil immunity, and individuals who use force in self-defense may still face civil lawsuits from assailants or their next-of-kin for damages resulting from the force used.

In addition to the castle doctrine, there is also the "stand your ground" doctrine, which may provide some protection depending on the state. This doctrine eliminates the duty to retreat and allows a person to claim self-defense even if they did not attempt to flee an assault.

Stand your ground laws and the right to self-defence

Stand Your Ground laws, also known as Shoot First laws, allow people to use a firearm to shoot and kill another person for legally unjustifiable reasons. These laws have dismantled the standards for justifiable and proportional self-defence by allowing anyone who believes their life to be in danger to use lethal force on any perceived threat. They remove the duty to retreat in a public space, meaning a person can use a firearm as a first resort, even if that means shooting and killing someone in public.

Stand Your Ground laws are based on the "castle doctrine", which removes the duty to retreat from an intruder when acting in self-defence in the home if the resident reasonably believes they are in danger. Stand Your Ground laws expand this doctrine to all public spaces.

These laws are associated with increases in homicide rates, resulting in 700 additional homicides each year in the US. They disproportionately harm Black lives and perpetuate racism in America. In instances where a Black victim is murdered by a white shooter, that shooting is deemed justified much more frequently than when the situation is reversed. The odds of a white person killing a Black person and it being deemed justified are 281% greater than a white person killing another white person.

Stand Your Ground laws are relatively new, with the first one passing in Florida in 2005. Today, at least 24 states have passed some form of these laws.

The role of mental health issues in mass shootings

While there is a common perception that mass shootings are caused by mental illness, the research indicates that the role of mental health issues in mass shootings is complex and not clear-cut. Mental health issues are indeed common among those who engage in mass shootings, but psychosis only plays a primary role in around 10% of cases.

According to Ragy Girgis, an associate professor of clinical psychiatry and an expert in severe mental illness, people with mental illness account for a very small proportion of perpetrators of mass shootings. Girgis and his colleagues from Columbia's Center of Prevention and Evaluation authored a report on mass shootings using the Columbia Mass Murder Database (CMMD), which examined the relationship between serious mental illness and mass shootings. The report found that approximately 5% of mass shootings are related to severe mental illness, while about 25% are associated with non-psychotic psychiatric or neurological illnesses, and an estimated 23% with substance use.

The data suggests that while it is important to identify individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders who are at high risk for violence, other risk factors such as a history of legal problems, challenges coping with severe and acute life stressors, and a combination of nihilism, emptiness, anger, and a desire for notoriety among young men, may be more useful areas of focus for prevention and policy.

Additionally, research has shown that substance abuse is a more common factor associated with violence by individuals with and without mental illness. In particular, the combination of schizophrenia and substance abuse has been linked to an increased risk of violent offending.

It is also important to note that early intervention through school-based services may be a key component of prevention, as individuals who commit mass shootings tend to have experienced childhood trauma and violence. Furthermore, most mass shooters are found to be in a state of crisis in the days or weeks preceding the shooting, and many exhibit warning signs such as leaking their plans in advance.

While the role of mental health issues in mass shootings is complex, addressing risk factors, improving access to mental health treatment, and implementing common-sense gun safety measures may all play a role in reducing the incidence of these tragic events.

The legality of private firearm sales

Federally licensed firearms dealers are required by federal law to conduct background checks on prospective buyers, but private (unlicensed) sellers are not. This is often referred to as the "gun show loophole" or "private sale exemption." While federal law does not require background checks for private sales, some states and localities do. Twenty-two states, the District of Columbia, and all US territories have laws mandating background checks for some or all private sales, typically facilitated through a licensed dealer.

The absence of a federal requirement for background checks in private sales has been criticised as a loophole that enables domestic abusers, school shooters, violent criminals, and gun traffickers to illegally obtain firearms. In response, there have been numerous efforts to expand background checks, including the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act signed into law by President Biden in 2022, which broadened the category of gun sellers required to become licensed dealers and conduct background checks.

Despite these efforts, unlicensed dealers continue to sell firearms without background checks, particularly at gun shows and online. This has been a critical gap in the background check laws, allowing individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, such as those with mental illnesses, to acquire weapons through private sales.

Frequently asked questions