The Texas Gunman Shouldn’t Have Been Able to Buy an Assault Rifle. But He Did.

What good is a background check that lacks critical information?

AR-15 style rifles made by Battle Rifle Co., a gunmaker in Webster, Texas, on display in its retail shop.Lisa Marie Pane/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Back in 2012, while stationed at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, Devin Patrick Kelley—the 26-year-old gunman who entered a rural Texas church on Sunday equipped with a Ruger AR-556 rifle and killed at least 26 people—was convicted of assaulting his wife and his infant stepson.

“He assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull, and he also assaulted his wife,” Don Christensen, a retired colonel who was the chief prosecutor for the Air Force, told the New York Times. “He pled to intentionally doing it.”

Kelley was court-martialed for two charges of domestic assault, sentenced to 12 months of confinement, and kicked out of the Air Force in 2014 with a Bad Conduct Discharge. His conviction should have prohibited him from buying or possessing firearms after his conviction, and yet, a year prior to Sunday’s massacre, Kelley was able to walk into an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, pass a background check, and buy the AR-556.

Kelley also managed to legally purchase the two handguns federal agents found in his car after the shootings. “By all the facts that we seem to know,” Gov. Gregg Abbott of Texas told CNN, “he was not supposed to have access to a gun. So how did this happen?”

One likely answer has to do with the way the military categorizes domestic-violence cases, and how it submits conviction records to the databases used in gun background checks. Indeed, on Monday, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek confirmed that Kelley was technically prohibited from buying a gun, but “Kelley’s domestic violence offense was not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database by the Holloman Airforce Base Office of Special Investigation.”

This may be a wider problem. As first reported by The Trace, current records show that as of the end of 2016, the Department of Defense had only a single (misdemeanor) domestic violence conviction on file with the FBI’s National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS). The Trace also reported that “the military has currently submitted zero records for members subject to domestic violence restraining orders.”

The Air Force’s failure to register Kelley’s conviction with the FBI may account for why, as CNN noted, “no disqualifying information” showed up when the gun dealer ran a background check. But there remains one more mystery:

“Devin Kelley sought to get a license to carry a gun in the state of Texas,” but the state turned him down, Abbott told CNN Monday morning. (Texas law requires a license to carry a concealed handgun, but rifles and shotguns may be carried openly without a license.) Abbott didn’t say when Kelley applied for the license.

As the military news website Task & Purpose notes, any time someone applies for a concealed-carry license in Texas, authorities do a background investigation that looks at not only the FBI’s NICS system, but also local and state records. If this investigation occurred before Kelley purchased some or all of his firearms, that would suggest yet another communication breakdown between state and federal systems. “What did Texas investigators know in their handgun-license investigation of Kelley that the federal database didn’t?” writes Task & Purpose senior editor Adam Weinstein (a Mother Jones alum). “Did Texas make sure that what it knew got to federal authorities?”

Apparently not.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate