Last Thursday, a lone gunman killed 8 people and injured several others in a mass shooting at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis.

Flowers placed in memoriam of victims in front of FedEx facility (Photo courtesy of NBC News).

Over the past year, leading up to this tragedy, multiple concerns were raised regarding the shooter’s mental health. These concerns were so significant that at one point in March of 2020, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department seized a shotgun from the shooter’s possession. Despite this, nearly a year later, a loophole in Indiana’s Jake Laird Law, also known as the Red Flag Law, allowed the guns used in the FedEx shooting to come into the shooter’s possession.

To further understand the Jake Laird Law and how this loophole was exploited, WFHB met virtually with Indiana University Professor and former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Paul Helmke. Paul has used his expertise in gun legislation and public policy in positions as the former president and CEO of the Brady Center and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

When asked about what the Jake Laird Law actually was and how it was supposed to function Helmke said, "Indiana actually is one of the leaders in the country in terms of trying to take weapons away from dangerous people. Back in 2004, there was an incident where an individual killed a family member, killed a police officer shot and wounded four other police officers and then was killed by the police. After the shootout, it was determined that the weapons he used to kill the other police officer had actually been seized by the police earlier and had been returned to him. And when our legislators and law enforcement folks realize that there was no law on the books that would have allowed law, the police to keep those weapons, they passed this Jake Laird Law. Basically, it was a copy of what Connecticut had done six years earlier. And it's really a gun removal statute more than just a red flag is Indiana law enforcement the power to ask a judge to take away someone's weapon, actually, they can take it away without a warrant and then get approval from the court, or they can get the approval from the court first. But if an individual who has been identified as dangerous, has a weapon, this gives the police the power to take that weapon away, then they're supposed to be hearing 14 days later to determine whether that's permanent or not. So that's a good law to have on the books."

However, regardless of this law and the action taken to previously seize his guns, the shooter was still able to obtain these firearms legally. Helmke speculated the degree to which this shooting could have been prevented, saying “It it's always difficult to say that something could have been prevented. But I think in this situation, something more could have been done to make this harder for this to have happened. Here's an individual whose mother identified him as dangerous over a year ago. And because she told the police about that, they came in and took a shotgun away from him over a year ago, the FBI got involved over a year ago, the Marion County prosecutor got involved over a year ago. And under Indiana's law, his fact then was taken and apparently he didn't ask for it back. But because Indiana's law only focuses on removing that gun until there's a court order that says this person is dangerous, he had the right to go out and buy other guns. And so last summer on two separate occasions, he bought dangerous weapons and then he used them last week, if we had to had a law on the books, that the motive said that dangerous person that is identified as dangerous at the police fill is dangerous that the family fill is dangerous that that person should be put on the prohibited purchaser list. And then if the person contest that they have a chance to get off the list,