What is the relevance of this article? Where was the table purchased?

The relevance is to his state of mind regarding these killings. Was it a sudden snap? He wasn't a hunter, why did he need a shot gun?

Also, when they purchase a kitchen knife, vehicle, or a piece of furniture- you never know what could be used to harm someone- come on!

The relevance is that all Supreme Court divorce filings are PUBLIC information, including Sam Friedlander's. Wouldn't that be a RED FLAG on the background check?

Since when would a divorce filing be a "red flag" on an ATF backround check? Is this something else that we want to preclude people from purchasing firearms legally?

@Chris there is a thing called the 2nd Amendment which gave him the right to purchase a shotgun without asking for anybody's permission.
@Jennifer you can't be serious. Divorce proceedings are civil matters not criminal.

@Ross - can you read? I never said he had to ask anyone's permission. I said the relevance goes to figuring out his state mind.

Unfortunately, purchasing a gun should also be a matter of public record. It would've been a useful bit of information for Amy's team to have. Perhaps when people are going through a particularly contentious divorce, the plaintiff's/ defendant's comings and goings need to be under scrutiny as it pertains to activities such as: applying for any kind of license, filling out job applications, taking out a new insurance policy, registering/purchasing a gun...

People like Tyana can actually vote in elections- isn't that a truly scary fact?

Why should it be a matter of public record? To obtain a rifle or shotgun the purchaser would have had to "pass" the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. This is run by the FBI and with “Instant Criminal Background Check"- once approved, the purchaser may take possession of the firearm. (This is not the law in NY City)
We do not judge people on what they "might" do. But we do hold them accountable for their past actions. Although it is both tragic and regrettable that these children and their mother were murdered by their father, the manner in which he obtained the firearm was lawful. He bludgeoned to death his wife. Even if he had been stopped from purchasing the shotgun I do not see how a more stringent gun law would have stopped her horrific death. We have some strong and useful gun laws, we just need to do a better job of enforcing them. At the time of the murder, they were still living in the same house. If there had been a fear of a physical confrontation then a restraining order would have been issued and he would not have been in the house.

As for your comment concerning a “particularly contentious divorce”; who is to judge that it is “particularly contentious”? and who would scrutinize applying for any license? A motorcycle license? A pistol permit? A drivers License? A hunting license? With no prior violent or criminal background why should you be able to stop him… or her, from making a purchase?
Many ugly divorces are completed where one or both parties own firearms, and unfortunately many where no one owns a firearm can become both violent and deadly. At this time, all local, state and federal laws were obeyed in the purchase of the shotgun. Now, thankfully in this country we have the ability to change laws by voting those into office that we choose to represent us.
The true tragedy here is the loss of four lives taken so violently and suddenly.

Come on folks what do you expect from the the anti-gun crowd. Coulda, shouda, woulda. Monday morning quarterbacking at best. I also guess that Jennifer has her degree in psychiatry since she seems to know the inner workings of Ross's and Elmers mind.
You better lock up all the knives, hammers, wood chippers,poisons, and any other object that could kill anyone for that matter.

Can't make pie with a gun