Why did Reinking have those guns?
Monday, Apr 23, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* AP…
A Secret Service agent says the suspect in a fatal Tennessee restaurant shooting who was arrested last July outside the White House complex had hoped to talk to President Donald Trump.
Special Agent Todd Hudson in Nashville says Travis Reinking “wanted to set up a meeting with the president.”
Hudson says Reinking tried to cross bike racks near the White House grounds that were part of security barriers. Reinking was asked to leave the restricted area, and when he declined, Hudson says he was arrested on a charge of unlawful entry.
* Nashville TV station…
His family stated he had made suicidal threats and owned guns. Officials said they took him for an evaluation at Methodist Hospital.
* ABC 7…
In May 2016, police were called to a CVS parking lot, where Reinking was threatening to kill himself. Family present at the time said that Reinking had delusions since 2014 involving singer Taylor Swift, whom he believed was stalking and harassing him.
Reinking told officers that Swift had told him to meet her at a Morton Dairy Queen and had hacked his phone and Netflix account. Reinking also believed that his family and police were involved in the harassment, officials said.
At the time, Reinking’s family informed police that he was in possession of firearms, but there is no record of any action being taken to remove the guns from Reinking’s possession at the time.
In June 2017, Reinking exposed himself at a pool while wearing a pink woman’s house coat, according to a police report. Earlier the same day, Reinking had gotten into a shouting match with a crane company employee, who said Reinking was wearing the house coat and holding an AR-15 rifle, the report said.
* CNN…
At the time of the White House incident, Reinking lived in an apartment above his father’s business, a crane rental company in Tremont, Illinois, according to the sheriff’s office incident reports. After his arrest at the White House for trespassing and being in a restricted area, the FBI and the Secret Service coordinated with local law enforcement to investigate Reinking and remove firearms from his possession, Matthew Espenshade, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of FBI’s Nashville office said Sunday.
On August 24, the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office seized four firearms and ammunition from Reinking’s apartment along with his state firearm owners identification, according to an incident report. The seizure came less than two weeks after a Tazewell County sergeant said that Reinking drove up to his squad car and asked about filing a report.
Reinking told the sergeant that people were “tapping into his computer and phone” and barking like dogs outside his home, according to an August 11 incident report. He said he felt like he was being watched and that people were baiting him into breaking the law, the report states. He told the officer that it all started after he started writing to Taylor Swift, according to the report.
* Chicago Tribune…
Sheriff Robert Huston in Tazewell County said deputies allowed Reinking’s father to take possession of the weapons on the promise that he would “keep the weapons secure and out of the possession of Travis.” Huston added that, based on past deputies’ encounters with Reinking, “there’s certainly evidence that there’s some sort of mental health issues involved.”
While Huston said it was unclear how Reinking reclaimed the firearms, Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron said that his father “has now acknowledged giving them back to his son.”
Under Illinois law, the weapons can be released to a family member, but Reinking could not lawfully possess the firearms there, Anderson, said.
I figure there will be an immediate temptation to blame the father for allegedly breaking the law by returning those guns to his son.
But is this really a surprise? Parents give in to their children, even their adult children, all the time.
So, perhaps we should revisit the Illinois statute allowing guns to be released to a family member when a FOID card is revoked.
Your thoughts?
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:19 am:
Here’s an example when the Illinois law as written was enforced and worked.
Until it didn’t. And four people, to date, are dead.
- Generation X - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:23 am:
No different than allowing a family member to possess a car after a person’s license is suspended for DUI. Can’t prevent them from giving keys back to offender.
Laws don’t stop those intent on breaking them otherwise we have a lot less domestic violence after OP’s are issued.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:28 am:
Has anyone confirmed with ISP that the FOID was actually revoked?
- Cable Line Beer Gardener - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:31 am:
“No different than allowing a family member to possess a car after a person’s license is suspended for DUI. Can’t prevent them from giving keys back to offender.”
I do believe that devices can be installed in vehicles that prevent intoxicated owners from driving.
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:31 am:
== So, perhaps we should revisit the Illinois statute allowing guns to be released to a family member when a FOID card is revoked. ==
Basically three alternatives:
1) don’t release to a family member, period.
2) add severe penalties if the family member returns the firearms without police or court approval
3) release only to a independent, bonded 3rd party to hold until return is approved by a court
- Last Bull Moose - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:35 am:
I would not change the law. I would use the story to impress families of the importance of keeping the guns away from the person with problems.
The father should have legal problems from giving the weapons back to his son. He must have signed something to get the weapons.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:35 am:
=== So, perhaps we should revisit the Illinois statute allowing guns to be released to a family member when a FOID card is revoked. ===
Absolutely. Usually, you would assume that parents have what is in the best interests of their children in mind (even their adult children), but here it seems like the father took the road to expediency instead of doing what was necessary to protect his son and others.
I know people get annoyed when it is perceived that the government is meddling in the lives of its citizens, but when we cannot trust people to do the right thing, we, as a society, need government to intervene.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:37 am:
=== The father should have legal problems from giving the weapons back to his son. ===
You better believe that if I was a member of the families of one of the slain individuals, there would be a wrongful death suit filed in a heartbeat.
- Dee Lay - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:38 am:
I’m sorry - Dad needs to be charged. He willfully disobeyed law enforcement and four people are dead because of it. I don’t see how this is a discussion.
Even the NRA is on the side of keeping guns away from the mentally ill.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:39 am:
Ah, so this is all Taylor Swift’s fault. Was Reinking being treated for mental illness? If not, why not?
- Generation X - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:42 am:
No amount of Government meddling will stop this sort of thing. The father appears to have illegally transferred guns to someone not allowed to possess them. Suppose these firearms we’re confiscated and destroyed. Does that stop father giving his kid firearms?
If the father gave these firearms to his known to be mentally Ill son, no amount of laws will stop that shocking lack of judgment.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:45 am:
=== Does that stop father giving his kid firearms? ===
No, but the government does not have to be complicit in this “shocking lack of judgment”. I mean he had these guns taken away for a reason. Why give them back at all?
- Moose - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:48 am:
Thank you for this compilation. It’s frustrating how different media outlets are sharing various snippets rather than the full picture. From what I can tell, the issue with gun confiscation often runs up against violating 5th amendment property rights. In Illinois, you must have a valid FOID to legally privileged firearms. FBI and local law enforcement was able to revoke the FOID. Evidently the next step of confiscating weapons is legal but not very typical in Illinois. So the fact that Tazewell deputies took action to search his residence and seize his weapons is a little unusual. Apparently under Illinois property rights laws, an immediate family member with a valid FOID can reclaim confiscated firearms since they technically still the property of the original owner, even though he can no longer legally possess them. This definitely puts family members in the middle of a bad situation and puts a ton of responsibility on them not to let the original owner/relative get them back. Furthermore, while I’m almost certain that it was illegal for the dad to return the weapons to Travis in Illinois, I’ve seen at least one Tennessee law enforcement officer suggest that it may not have been illegal for the dad to give them back to Travis once he moved to Tennessee. All kinds of interesting legal dilemmas, none of which give any comfort to the families of the victims.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:59 am:
People, I’m totally uninterested in your drive-by (and now mostly deleted) views about what prosecutors should do in this case. Stick to what we do here, which is Illinois government.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:09 am:
Clearly it was an unintended result that the father returned these weapons to this unstable son. That highlights a void in the procedure. Specifically fix this. Someone far removed from a direct relative should be deciding whether someone is stable enough to have their privileges and rights reinstated. The weapons were returned indirectly. The FOID card appears not to have been returned.
- Amalia - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:11 am:
Yes. change the law. and prosecute those who broke laws.
- @misterjayem - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:20 am:
“No amount of Government meddling will stop this sort of thing. The father appears to have illegally transferred guns to someone not allowed to possess them. Suppose these firearms we’re confiscated and destroyed. Does that stop father giving his kid firearms?”
It stops the father from simply handing the murder weapon to his kid without paying a monetary cost for purchasing another firearm (and without suffering the grievous hassle that 2A fundamentalists are always going on about).
Requiring a few more steps between the father’s bad thought (deciding to give his kid a gun) and his bad action (actually giving his kid the gun) certainly could have made a difference.
– MrJM
- Tequila Mockingbird - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:22 am:
I see it as further evidence that the FOID act is ineffective and useless. It’s been law here since something like 1968 iirc. If it actually worked wouldn’t all the other states have realized it by now?
- 618er - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:24 am:
I wonder what the Tennessee laws are for firearm possession.
Wordslinger is correct to a point I think.
The procedures in Illinois law seemed to worked. I wonder how common it is for FOID cards to be revoked and firearms removed from an individuals possession.
The father will have to live with the consequences of his decision to give them back to his son
- FormerParatrooper - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:25 am:
When he was at Methodist did they find him to be mentally ill? Did they report that to the State if they did? Was he given medications and what were they?
The father transferred the firearms back to the son and it appears this occurred after Illinois adopted background checks on private transfers. Regardless of where the son moved too, he had his FOID revoked, unless it was reinstated he could not possess firearms.
I see the son as responsible for his actions, he chose to do so. His father is culpable because he knew his sons mental state and transferred firearms back to him.
- Boone's is Back - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:26 am:
Yes change the law and add criminal penalties. It’s negligent entrustment.
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:35 am:
If FOID card revoked and weapons confiscated should stay at a police evidence warehouse until a court orders them returned. Perhaps if not returned after a couple of years sell the weapons and return money to person. Why put family members in such a position?
- Just Me - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:39 am:
I am curious to know if the ISP gave the father a written instruction that the guns were not to be returned to the son, and if the father actually broke any laws by returning them.
If the father is not criminally liable, he certainly is morally.
- A Jack - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:43 am:
This happened in my family back in the 70’s even before I think FOID cards were required. My cousin was walking up and down the sidewalk of the Governor’s Mansion with a shot gun when Walker was Governor. The police took away his gun and gave it to his father. His father sold it to my father to get it out of the house. My cousin received the mental treatment he needed.
But yes, I didn’t understand the police giving the weapon to a relative then, and I don’t understand stand it now. Police can seize a person’s personal property if they are caught dealing drugs and that personal property is rarely returned. Yet, here a person has an obvious mental issue and the police returned the weapons to a family member. The least they could have done is held in to the weapons until the person was adjudicated as sane.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:48 am:
I’m a fairly typical shooter, probably a little more into it than most. And I’m also very much on the side of safety, but it needs to be balanced against rights. I’m not a fan of the “if it saves one life” philosophy when it adversely affects thousands.
In this case IMO the father is obviously negligent and should be held responsible for his actions.
I’m not a fan of overbearing laws, but I think that RNUG hit on a great idea above - having a third party provide escrow for the storage and possible disposal of a prohibited person’s firearms after their FOID has been revoked for cause. The third party would obviously need to be an FFL. How this would be funded is open to discussion.
- SW - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 11:13 am:
The father broke the law. Prosecute him. No need for new laws.
- Blue dog dem - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 11:30 am:
I dont know if the FOID card idea is effective. It’s a bad idea in mt opinion. Buts its the law. I would like to see it eliminated. But until then. It’s the law.
I just received notification from ISP that it could take up to 2 months to renew my FOID. ridiculous. Am I a felon if I fail to receive my renewal before the old one expires? 46 other states are without. What do they do different?
- Streamwood Retiree - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 11:32 am:
Sorry, asking for our thoughts is pretty open-ended.
On the point. I agree with SW. No changes needed.
- LINK - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 12:01 pm:
Rich et al,
I don’t want to do a drive by and I feel that there are numerous solid and excellent comments above.
However, in my mind we are focusing on the wrong issue, as I feel the real issue is how our mental health services work, and, how the current system doesn’t work.
But in all fairness and in response to your question, the laws, rules and regulations in place regarding the firearms/FOID process worked, but as it stands now, nothing can truly prevent the individual (nor family/friend from enabling something like this from happening) unless the alleged mentally ill person receives treatment or institutionalization. Nowadays it seems as though individuals who appear to truly need treatment, or in worse case scenarios, institutionalization are walking the streets for society fears forced treatment or institutionalizations being abused.
Again, sorry to maybe stray from your question but I like to look at the possible roots and our mental health system needs some attention for if a person had smallpox or some other virulent disease, public health would step in and (hopefully) address the situation and protect not only the individual but society…
Again, I hope you don’t think this is a drive by or too off the subject but I have had strong feelings about this for nearly 40 years.
- Todd - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 12:02 pm:
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 9:31 am:
== So, perhaps we should revisit the Illinois statute allowing guns to be released to a family member when a FOID card is revoked. ==
Basically three alternatives:
1) don’t release to a family member, period.
2) add severe penalties if the family member returns the firearms without police or court approval
3) release only to a independent, bonded 3rd party to hold until return is approved by a court
So lets look at a couple of things as I try to paint the law and isues here. . .
Illinois law is amoung the most strict with mental health issues. No finding is necessary to revoke the right. I think that run afoul of a due process claim. The mere checking in or being held with out a diagnosis is enough.
If his FOID was revoked, than any transfer back to him here is a violation of the law and is a felony. Even without the diagnosis, the FOID is gone unless he completes and appeal SO I don’t see an easy way for him to get his FOID back and make it leagal.
The cops do a poor job of maintaining firearms either for safe keeping or evidense. They don’t always have the room for stoarge of a lot of these things and if they get beat up whos to blame and compemtsate the owner? So they try not to store them as to not be liable for them. I’ve seen scopes come up missing, scratched, dented, rusted you name it for people who had thousdands of $$$ of guns “kept” for safe keeping.
If he had moved to Tenesse, then the Father has anothe problem as transferring firearms across state lines, even to a family member is against the law and are federal felonies.
I do not belive that Ten law is anwhere close to ours on mental helath issues and it is a question as if the Illinois law would be a federal bar as it does not reach the federal leven and not being a resident of Illinois that Illinois “bar” may no longer attach as a resident of Tennesse
On the civil side it would appear a claim could be brought.
Just my thoughts . . .
- Walleyeb - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 12:05 pm:
Curious, was this kid adopted?
- JS Mill - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 12:05 pm:
=I just received notification from ISP that it could take up to 2 months to renew my FOID. ridiculous. Am I a felon if I fail to receive my renewal before the old one expires? 46 other states are without. What do they do different?=
Maybe call and ask them about their staffing levels?
To the psot- The father is in violation of the law if he knowingly gave a weapon to someone that did not possess a FOID card if he gave them to him when he was an Illinois resident.
Either way, it was a terrible decision and he will be sued for sure. Given his sons past history the father shares the responsibility for the deaths of four people.
- downstate commissioner - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 12:22 pm:
Have problems with any form of confiscation of any material goods, so believe that family should have right to confiscated guns. Probably there should be some legal penalty to the receiver if those guns are returned to original owner without valid FOID.
Incidentally, after some 50 years with a FOID, I don’t see why some people are so opposed to it. It is still relatively cheap and offers a certain level of public protection, thru the background check.
- Milkman - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 12:28 pm:
The father should be charged
- Blue dog dem - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 1:14 pm:
To the post. Until I see statistics to prove otherwise. I believe the FOID idea provides a false sense of security that it does anything to prevent these horrific tragedies.
- Responsa - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 1:20 pm:
Thank goodness Reinking has just been taken into custody.
- LizInTeXaS - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
Not giving the guns to the father or family member will not solve the problem this created because they could just as easily buy firearms for someone who has had theirs taken away. What should be a chargeable offense is that whomever provides firearms to someone who is prohibited from having them (be it a gun store or an individual) should be charged for providing a gun and then charged with any crimes committed with such gun after the fact. And claiming ignorance will still be no excuse for breaking the law. That will slow down all those shady gun transfers.
- Vidster - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 2:58 pm:
There could be a violation of the law on the father’s part by transferring the gun to the son if the son was living in another state. IIRC Transfers from IL residents to TN residents need to go through an FFL.
The son was prohibited from owning guns in IL since he lost his FOID, but not in TN.
- Andy L. - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:27 pm:
What was the disposition of the Federal Charge, was this guy on Federal Probation for the White House incident? If so, did the Federal Probation Officer do his/her job? Obviously not if he had access to weapons.
- JDuc - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:14 pm:
FOID is silly. Many states don’t have them and they still do background checks.
Father made a big mistake.
Civil rights again trumping the polices ability to stop the shooter.
- MyTwoCents - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:52 pm:
Any sort of legal liability on the part of the father will be determined by the legal system but he is certainly morally liable for his actions. To me it seems like the family certainly had enough warning signs that their son was mentally ill, should be seeking treatment and certainly should not be possessing firearms. But when a neighbor of the family is quoted as blaming violent video games we still have a long way to go towards destigmatizing mental health in this country.
- Jenne - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:21 pm:
I feel the Secret Service should never have returned guns to parents, we all are guilty of giving in too easy to our children because we want to believe them too bad. That law needs changing, guns should be turned over to courts and sold for expenses involved with the arrest.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:31 pm:
–I feel the Secret Service should never have returned guns to parents,–
It was the Tazewell County Sheriff that took the guns, after due process, then gave them to the parents.
- ArchPundit - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 8:53 pm:
It’s unclear if the law was violated. If the father returned the firearms to a resident of Tennessee then the FOID issue is much less clear.
I think that makes the point that once guns are confiscated, they don’t go back to the family or anyone else.
And while I get what Rich is saying about the family dynamics, given the level of mental illness involved, the Dad has a large moral debt to pay if not legal.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 6:16 am:
This is why we need Medicare for all. There has been a cure for pychosis available for half a century. It’s a pill and it has to prescribed, as it has nasty side effects and things can go wrong. I doubt a person this ill could keep a regular job so who was paying for his mental illness treatments? As a society we are just going to tolerate a person this sick go along with no treatment? No treatment for mental ill people, coupled with few restraints for guns, one may as well stay at home and never go outside.
- BDnSC - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 9:37 am:
Charge the father as an with reckless endangerment resulting in death at the very least. Or, charge him as an accomplice. I’m pretty sure there is nothing standing in the way of doing either right now, so no need to change the law. Just start upholding them.
- lindseyluu - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 10:53 am:
I think the issue here is there is no “background” check to know if someone is sane, however if there are incidents in hospitals, or on record with police of someone having “problems” as said in interviews, then why are we not using those to prevent things like this?
He clearly had severe problems, yet was still totally capable of going into a store, and was approved to carry a license. Does anyone know where he initially had purchased his guns?
- cyan - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 7:03 pm:
Make it Illinois law that it is illegal to give or sell a gun to someone who has had his/her FOID revoked, and give it teeth with prison time for those who break it.
Require insurance for owning a gun, and also make it illegal to sell or give a gun to a person who does not have valid proof of insurance.