Illinois School Shooter's Mom Bought Rifle He Used, But She's A Felon

The Illinois school shooter used a gun that his mother had purchased.

Dixon, IL - The 19-year-old school shooter who was shot by a school resource officer got the rifle he used from his mother - except she's a felon.

The Illinois State Police said that in 2012, Julie Milby passed a background check and purchased the 9 mm semi-automatic rifle her son brought to school.

However, she has a felony conviction in Florida that should have prevented her from buying it, WGN-TV reported.

Matthew Milby opened fire at Dixon High School on May 16 near the school auditorium where students were gathered to rehearse for a graduation ceremony, according to CNN.

School Resource Officer Mark Dallas confronted Matthew Milby, who then took off on foot from the school.

Officer Dallas chased after him, while Matthew Milby fired several rounds in his direction.

The officer returned fire and hit the 19-year-old, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The incident ended with no lives lost, and nobody was shot who didn't need shooting.

After the incident, Julie Milby told police and reporters that her family didn’t have any guns and she didn’t know how her son got the gun he’d taken to school, according to WGN.

“We don’t have guns,” she said at the time. “I don’t have any guns in the house.”

Despite the mother’s initial claims to the contrary, her attorney Tom Murray later told WGN he believed she bought the gun in Illinois, legally, and with a Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) card.

The bigger question that remained was why Julie Milby had been able to purchase and was still in possession of any weapons.

Her prior felony conviction in Florida should have showed up on a background check and prevented her from buying the rifle.

Julie Milby was known as Julie Mitchell when she was convicted of felony battery and felony resisting an officer with violence in Florida in 1991.

Furthermore, the Chicago Tribune reported that Lee County, Illinois record showed an order of protection had been issued against Julie Milby in 2017 at the request of a relative, and was still in effect.

When that order of protection was issued, Julie Milby was required to turn over all her firearms to police, according to court documents.

WGN reported that Julie Milby claimed her identity had been stolen at some point while she lived in Florida, and resulted in numerous felony convictions showing up on her record that were not hers.

Even if you remove the convictions stemming from identity theft, she would still have an earlier felony conviction on her record.

Illinois State Police would not specify how she got the gun, or what went wrong with the background check because the case was still under investigation, WGN reported.

A felony conviction from anywhere in the United States is supposed to disqualify someone from getting a FOID card, which is required to legally buy a gun in Illinois.

Matthew Milby remains in jail with bail set at $2 million.

No. 1-15

Yeah right lol. Someone hear keeps pissing and moaning about its easier to buy a gun than a car in some states blah blah blah. It don't get more difficult to get a gun there.


To be honest, the most logical answer has been given by Hi_Comm. The system has failed as either a background check wasn't run or the background check failed. If the first is true than the seller should also be found at fault and if the second is true than we must create a more effective background check system. Hi_Comm is right, whether you like them or not.


Illinois and Cook County in particular are known for their strict gun laws, their extremely low prosecution rate, and high gun violence. Draw your own conclusions.


A law I'd like to see passed, nationally, is prosecution of a parent or parents who allow their children access to weapons if they are used in a shooting by their child. For instance, I understand that the Parkland Florida School shooter had had his weapons confiscated, but they were given to his father, who then gave them back to his son. WTH?


The point is that is was a failure period and needs to be fixed, not new laws made.