Western Psych gunman bought guns despite troubles
By Margaret Harding
Published: Saturday, March 31, 2012
After he tangled with police and was committed to a mental health facility in Oregon in 2010, John F. Shick should not have been able to buy a gun in America under federal law.
But an Albuquerque, N.M., man told investigators he sold two 9 millimeter handguns with no background check to a man resembling Shick when Shick responded to a newspaper ad in April 2011, Pittsburgh police Cmdr. Thomas Stangrecki said on Friday.
Private sales without background checks are legal under New Mexico law. Shick tried to buy a handgun in Oregon in January 2011 and was denied after a background check.
Pittsburgh police believe Shick used the handguns to fatally shoot therapist Michael Schaab, 25, of Regent Square and wound five others at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic on March 8.
"This situation is an example of a person who clearly had dangerous tendencies -- he already had been flagged by law enforcement -- but he was still able to gain access to firearms because our laws are such a patchwork," said Max Nacheman, director of CeaseFirePA, a gun violence prevention group. "There are very few barriers to a person who is determined to get a firearm."
Unlike Pennsylvania, which requires background checks in private handgun sales, neither Oregon nor New Mexico requires an individual selling a gun to another person to run a background check or keep records of the sale.
"Obviously, an upstanding person should make sure the gun is not falling in the wrong hands," said Lt. Robert McDonald of the New Mexico state police.
Investigators are trying to learn more about the gun purchase in New Mexico and to learn if Shick "... was living there, if he was traveling through or visiting, or went specifically to purchase a firearm," Stangrecki said.
Background checks should be conducted in gun sales, and private sellers should be able to do them instead of having to go to federally licensed gun dealers, which are authorized to conduct the checks, said Kim Stolfer, chairman of Firearms Owners Against Crime.
"I think it's an inadequate effort to make them (private sellers) go to a gun dealer when the average individual should be able to do it as well," Stolfer said.
Shick was committed in Oregon in January 2010 after his arrest for fighting with police at Portland International Airport. His mother told investigators in Pittsburgh that he was diagnosed with late-onset schizophrenia and that she thought he had stopped taking his medication.
According to federal law, anyone committed to a mental institution is barred from owning a gun. But not every state submits commitment information to the national database that gun dealers and police use for background checks.
"There are certain people prohibited from owning firearms, but there is no way to enforce that law if you're not going to conduct a background check and if that background check system isn't populated with all the applicable data," Nacheman said.
Oregon began submitting its commitment records to the national data pool in December. Pennsylvania does not submit the information nationally; state police have said legal issues are holding up the process. Stolfer said he believes Pennsylvania should submit those records.
"It may be the first time in my life I ever agreed with the anti-gun groups," Stolfer said. "Above and beyond any other entity, gun owners don't want bad guys to get guns."
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.