ONTD Political

Murderous 'monster' acquires an arsenal

7:51 pm - 01/20/2013
They knew the Delano house far too well. It was where Christian Philip Oberender, then 14 years old, had murdered his mother in a shotgun ambush in the family rec room in 1995.

Now, 18 years later, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson was sending his deputies back to the home where Oberender still lives. Just two days earlier, Olson had scanned the day's shift reports and froze when he tripped over Oberender's name. A scan of a Facebook page then showed firearms spread out like a child's trophies on a bed inside the home, along with notes about the Newtown, Conn., gunman who shot 20 children to death.

What Olson's deputies found in the home was chilling: 13 guns, including semi-automatic rifles, an AK-47, a Tommy gun, assorted shotguns and handguns, including a .50-caliber Desert Eagle.

Even more disturbing was the letter Oberender had written recently to his late mother, Mary: "I am so homicide," it said in broken sentences. "I think about killing all the time. The monster want out. He only been out one time and someone die."

Today, Oberender sits in a Carver County jail cell on a charge of being a felon in possession of firearms. And Olson, who investigated the 1995 murder as a young detective, finds his investigators at the center of a case that exposes the dangerous loopholes in the nation's gun laws and Minnesota's system of criminal background checks.

Even though Oberender killed his mother with a firearm, even though he was committed to the state hospital in St. Peter as mentally ill and dangerous more than a decade ago, he was able to obtain a permit to purchase firearms last May. That piece of paper gave Oberender, now 32, the ability to walk into any licensed Minnesota retailer and buy any assault weapon or pistol on the rack.

Dozens of other Minnesotans judged by a court to be mentally ill have also found that designation no barrier to obtaining deadly weapons.

A Star Tribune review of state court records found case after case in which individuals deemed mentally ill in judicial proceedings later wound up in possession of guns and accused of violent crimes.

At least 84 people have been charged since 2000 with illegal gun possession or assault with a dangerous weapon even though they had previously been committed by a judge as mentally ill. Of that group, 29 were charged with multiple counts of weapons possession and nine were considered by a judge to be mentally ill and dangerous.

Additionally, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) has more than 168,000 "suspense files'' -- records on Minnesotans who have been arrested since 1990 but whose files are so incomplete that the state can't determine if they should have the right to buy guns.

"The system failed in this case,'' Olson said in an interview. "We are having discussions with the BCA to make sure there aren't similar things like this hanging out there.''

Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are working with Olson's investigators to sort out which guns Oberender might have bought from retailers using a permit he should never have possessed.


No red flags
How did Christian Oberender succeed in obtaining a gun permit?

The answer lies in a combination of deceit on his part, failures in the state court system, and haphazard data collection by state agencies, according to interviews with law enforcement officials.

In Minnesota, a person seeking a permit to purchase an assault weapon or pistol must submit an application to the local police or sheriff's department. There, the background check process begins with a query of the BCA's system. If no disqualifications show up -- such as a violent criminal record or mental illness commitment -- the permit is granted.

No state permit is required to purchase a long rifle or a shotgun in Minnesota. Buyers going to a licensed retailer must pass a federal background check at the counter -- but those records can also be incomplete because they are supplied to the FBI by state agencies.

Minnesota's gun laws don't require an applicant to provide a fingerprint or a Social Security number to verify identity.

"This was one of our concerns during the 'Conceal and Carry' debate in Legislature 10 years ago and it was beaten down like everything else," said Heather Martens, executive director of Protect Minnesota, a gun violence prevention organization.

Martens said Oberender's case highlights the reluctance of lawmakers to tighten gun laws because they fear being accused of infringing on individual rights. "Public schoolteachers have to go through a complete background check, even including a fingerprint,'' Martens said. "For buyers of assault weapons and pistols, law enforcement currently has only seven days to verify the person's identity and criminal history -- otherwise, a permit is automatically granted. We should at least allow police enough time to verify the person's identity.''

At the BCA, a spokesperson said the agency's database will catch closely matched names and aliases, but it would not snag a name like the one on Oberender's application.

In Oberender's case, the first glitch was that he simply transposed his first name and middle name on the gun permit application, apparently in an attempt to avoid recognition by the BCA's database.

Additionally, when Oberender applied for his permit, records show, he lied about his mental health history, a move that triggered no red flag in the computers -- the BCA's system doesn't contain any state commitment records of the mentally ill and dangerous.

"When we checked the record, there were no disqualifiers for a 'Philip Christian Oberender,'" said Carver Deputy Jason Kamerud.

Last week, investigators also learned that Oberender's juvenile record -- where the murder of his mother is recorded -- had not been attached to his criminal history at the BCA. Carver investigators are still puzzled over that.

In a statement, BCA spokesperson Jill Oliveira said, "There were no data submitted to the BCA about this individual; without it there can be no record."


Loopholes
The state's criminal background system appears to contain another loophole for violent felons and persons found mentally ill and dangerous who want to escape scrutiny. Under state law, a person's juvenile record is deleted from the BCA's database when the individual turns 28 unless a judge says otherwise, Oliveira said. As a result, a person with a violent juvenile record -- like Oberender -- might still qualify to buy a gun if there were no felonies on his adult record.

State law requires the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide local law enforcement agencies with records of people who have been committed to institutional care for mental illness, if the applicant gives consent. But in general, the BCA said, a court order for civil commitment is classified as private data and is not available to the BCA.

"There is no way that BCA can have DHS's commitment data,'' Oliveira said in a statement. In addition, about half of those committed by a court are directed to community providers, not state facilities, thus leaving it to the courts, not DHS, to ensure that the records are sent.

It's unclear whether Oberender's mental health history was ever entered into any background check database.

In late 2011, DHS tried to streamline the process, opening an electronic portal for background checks used by law enforcement officials. Last year an estimated 32,000 checks were conducted, and about 500 people were flagged as potential risks. When that happens, the agency provides law enforcement officials with a deeper check on people who could be disqualified.

DHS also checks the state Supreme Court information system, currently the most accurate record of commitments, the agency said in a statement. "However," it added, "without additional identifying information, it may be difficult to determine whether someone with a common name matches an entry in the system."


'Want to hurt people'
Oberender received three years of intensive treatment for his mental illness as a juvenile, but in late 1998 was ordered committed as "mentally ill and dangerous" to the St. Peter state hospital. Mental health professionals wrote in court findings that they believed there was "a substantial likelihood that Oberender will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm to another." There are apparently no public records of when he was released from St. Peter. In a 2003 interview with the Star Tribune, Oberender said he spent a year in a halfway house after his release and believed he was turning his life around thanks to "all kinds of treatment."

The felony charge he now faces could put him in prison for up to five years, or it could lead a judge to send him back to St. Peter for psychiatric care.

Before his arrest, Oberender had been working as a skilled mechanic at a local sanitation hauling company.

David Peterson, a co-worker and friend, said he believes his friend must have been living two lives.

The two often spent time shooting guns behind Oberender's home, at targets ranging from old television sets to junk cars and pop cans, all the while critiquing each weapon, he said. He said that Oberender told him that he bought most of his guns at two licensed retail stores in the area and that the weapons were all registered.

Oberender, he said, rarely mentioned his past, sharing only brief snippets about the murder.

Still, Peterson said he felt so comfortable with Oberender that he invited him to his home for social occasions and was planning on setting him up with a date. "He is an excellent, great friend," Peterson said.

Then there was the other life, the one where a self-described "monster" lived inside the quiet young man.

"I think about killing all the time,'' Oberender wrote. "Why god do I feel like this? The monster want to hurt people. Guns are too fast. The monster want it to be slow and painful. There is so much pain in my heart and soul. Me want other to feel it."

Sheriff Olson read the letter after his investigators inventoried their evidence.

"It was chilling," he said.

source
themistressmoon 21st-Jan-2013 02:13 am (UTC)
St. Peter is literally a 15 minute drive from where I grew up. 0_0
muggy_wump 21st-Jan-2013 02:28 am (UTC)
Awful. Good on the sheriff though: It sounds like his research and quick action prevented a terrible tragedy. I'm glad Oberender could be detained before he hurt anyone else, and I hope he receives the help he clearly needs.
tallycola 21st-Jan-2013 03:29 am (UTC)
I wonder if part of his mental illness involves going into these violent, desperate states where his communication skills suffer?

IDK I'm not a psychiatrist at all but maybe it's possible he's less lucid when he's having those homicidal urges?
mahsox_mahsox 21st-Jan-2013 09:50 am (UTC)
Probably because he's having trouble with reality in general.
alexvdl 21st-Jan-2013 03:23 am (UTC)
We have laws to prevent this sort of thing. We can't or don't enforce them.

I'm not sure how adding more laws we can't or don't enforce is going to help the situation. Whatever my issues with the presentation of the executive actions, I believe the President's decision to work at making laws on the books enforceable and more effective is a much better course of action than spending time and political capital on enacting new laws, especially with the state of the economy and the budget.
hinoema 21st-Jan-2013 04:50 am (UTC)
You keep saying the same thing like it's going to go over better with enough repetition.
alexvdl 21st-Jan-2013 04:54 am (UTC)
*laugh* Actually, the only part of that comment that I've said before is that I don't agree with the President's presentation of his executive actions.

As for "going over better", who cares?
ladypolitik 21st-Jan-2013 05:00 am (UTC)
As for "going over better", who cares?

.....You?
alexvdl 21st-Jan-2013 05:07 am (UTC)
If I cared about my opinion going over well in this community, I'd probably endeavor to state one that people felt more palatable.

As for in real life... somehow I doubt that my opinion will matter or affect national politics. Frankly, if I had to guess, I'd say that my opinions matter to me and not much past that.

Edited at 2013-01-21 05:22 am (UTC)
hinoema 21st-Jan-2013 12:47 pm (UTC)
When I say 'going over well' I mean the common standard of it being believable, supportable and logical, not palatable.

Existing laws CAN be enforced more thoroughly while new laws are also being made, when needed. You seem to be incapable of grasping the concept of multi-tasking, or the fact that different laws on a broad topic like gun regulation can cover different situations.
alexvdl 21st-Jan-2013 03:30 pm (UTC)
*laugh* Incapable, eh?

Multitasking is a very real thing, sure. But it's not one which our modern congress excels at. The 112th Congress is the least productive one since they started keeping track of such things (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/congress-unproductive_n_2371387.html). They can't manage to pass something that everyone agrees we need (I.E. a budget), how are they going to pass something as politically divisive as new gun control laws?

Yes, Congress is certainly capable of working on getting multiple bills passed at the same time, but the propaganda machine isn't. Look back to the last few years and how things have been presented. What other bills were in the works during the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act debates? How much press did they get? How many bills have been passed "at the last minute" or "just in the nick of time to avert crisis"? There is a reason that Congress' approval rating has dipped to ten percent twice in recent years, and it's not because of how well they multitask, how efficient they are, or because of their tireless work ethic.

As for what I can grasp, you might want to consider what I've said, instead of just assuming what I've said and attacking me for it. One, this article shows that current laws are not or can not be enforced. Two, I agree with the President's tack of getting current laws enforced/enforceable before making new laws. Three, passing new gun control laws will be difficult due to the current political climate and ineptitude of Congress.

hinoema 22nd-Jan-2013 04:19 am (UTC)
I'm aware of these things. What I'm commenting on was this bit: " especially with the state of the economy and the budget." Why throw that in there, unless you mean that we can't talk about gun law and the budget at the same time... again?
alexvdl 22nd-Jan-2013 04:32 am (UTC)
Because it's pretty obvious that Congress will do whatever it takes NOT to talk about the state of the economy or the budget. Up to and including making deals with the White House to not touch it until the next session. They're not going to deal with two hugely divisive issues at the same time and they've shown they'll keep on finding other things to deal with, and keep pushing the deadline back a little further, and digging us a little deeper.

Everything in the government revolves around money, and the legislative branch refuses to deal with it. They've now gone so far as violating law to continue to do so. (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).

In my mind, there is no more pressing issue in a government than making sure that it has the continuing ability to function. Especially when Congressional paychecks are guaranteed, and paychecks and social security checks ain't.
omgangiepants 21st-Jan-2013 07:40 am (UTC)
Do you apply this logic to other laws?
mskye 21st-Jan-2013 08:50 am (UTC)
asrana 21st-Jan-2013 10:44 am (UTC)
...I recognise that in this specific instance the existence of mental health problems is important to the story. But this line still made me cringe:
Dozens of other Minnesotans judged by a court to be mentally ill have also found that designation no barrier to obtaining deadly weapons.


OH NOES, TEH MENTALS! MUST! DO SOMETHING!

Not to mention,
At least 84 people have been charged since 2000 with illegal gun possession or assault with a dangerous weapon even though they had previously been committed by a judge as mentally ill. Of that group, 29 were charged with multiple counts of weapons possession and nine were considered by a judge to be mentally ill and dangerous.

So what you're saying is that 75 people who had a history of mental illness were deemed not to be dangerous, but you're going to include them in the numbers anyway because 84 sounds so much better for a news story than nine?
hinoema 21st-Jan-2013 12:51 pm (UTC)
Pretty much. I'd be far more worried about people with a history of violent offenses being restricted from owning guns.
silver_apples 21st-Jan-2013 12:54 pm (UTC)
I found that upsetting too. I wonder if there's a difference between being found mentally ill by a doctor and being committed by a judge--do they only bring a judge in when the person is considered a danger to themselves or others? (Of course, that still leaves things like eating disorders, addictions, depression...) Is there a criminal charge associated with the cases where a judge makes this ruling?
maenads_dance 21st-Jan-2013 04:53 pm (UTC)
Doctors do not find people to be mentally ill - they might diagnose you out of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) but "mentally ill" is not a clinical finding. Courts become involved either when a crime has been committed by a person with a diagnosable mental illness, or when a person admitted to a psychiatric hospital wants to leave but the psychiatrists/staff at the psych hospital - or the ill person's family members - want that person to remain in the hospital. Grounds for involuntary commitment are a person's being an immediate danger to their own life or to the lives of others.
alexvdl 21st-Jan-2013 03:34 pm (UTC)
People who have been committed by a judge as mentally ill aren't allowed to own firearms. Those 75 have been included in the numbers because they were in illegal possession of firearms, or used a firearm to assault someone .

This page was loaded Apr 27th 2015, 1:48 pm GMT.