Hey, Burt:
All due respect amigo, but we need to get away from this "the gun was stolen" crap right away. The gun belonged to his mother and was in their house. THEIR house, so there is a pretty good argument that he "took" the gun but since he had constructive possession ahead of time, I'm not sure that's theft that we can defend as theft.
He murdered his mother, somehow. Maybe with the rifle, maybe with one of the handguns.
There is a bigger issue here that I am going to pursue 1st thing Monday morning. The cops have been curiously evasive about this and there is no reason for it:
It has been reported repeatedly that two handguns were recovered inside the school and a Bushmaster rifle found in a car outside, and now the ME says the kids were primarily killed with a rifle.
This does not make sense. What did this loon do, walk the rifle out to the car and lock it in the trunk and then stroll back inside the school to kill himself? Nobody is asking about that for clarity.
I have a real problem with claiming this rifle was "stolen." That is simply not going to wash in the debate, and debating and writing about this stuff is how I make my living.
Concentrate on the points we can make that will stick. The firearms were legally purchased and licensed. That did not stop the crime. We win on that point. The crime occurred in a gun-free school zone. We win on that point. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun restrictions of any state and this is where the crime occurred. We win on that point.
But stealing a gun from the home in which he lived? That doesn't even win with me, amigo, and I'm on your side.
Actually, legally, you can steal things from other people in the house. If she had lived, mom could have reported those guns as stolen. Now if it had been a husband or wife that had taken something from the spouse, I'd be on board with your theory. In this case of a son and mother, there is no sharing of property- guns in this case.