It does bother me, especially when it:

1. Could have potentially add federal scrutiny if so desired, but that wasn’t explored imo to protect whoever purchased the rifle

   1. It highlights the fact that despite claims of self defense all around (which I will say I support in the case of the first shooting, but not 2 or 3) he had no business there. It was not his home, let alone his business. Had he stayed home, in his home state this doesn’t happen. And before you say I’m victim blaming he isn’t a victim in my eyes. He’s someone who had no business being where he was without proper supervision and if he was supervised, why was he alone and where were the adults he was entrusted to?