TexasCHLforum.com

OldGrumpy wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:I bet they ordered their guns from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue and got them delivered directly to their house. Oughta be a law against that.

I remember the time when you could order a gun from Sears to be mailed to your home

“The original question is they walked up to that car and appeared they shot the officer in the head unprovoked, that it was an assassination. But why? How did that fit into their plan? The operating theory now in the investigation is they were short one gun. The older brother had a gun. They wanted to get a gun for the younger brother and the fastest and most efficient way they could think of doing it was a surprise attack on a cop, to take his weapon and go. Officer Collier had a locking holster, it’s like a three-way lock. If you don’t know how to remove the gun, you’re not going to get it out. There was apparently an attempt to yank it and they couldn’t get it and left. “

mr surveyor wrote:I bet they ordered their guns from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue and got them delivered directly to their house. Oughta be a law against that.

Dadtodabone wrote:Ah, Western Auto, I received a Marlin/Glenfield 36G and my brother a 989G for Christmas in 1962. Delivered to the front door via USPS parcel post. Hopped on our Western Flyers on the 26th and rode out into the hinterlands for a day of shooting. No papers.

mr surveyor wrote:

Dadtodabone wrote:Ah, Western Auto, I received a Marlin/Glenfield 36G and my brother a 989G for Christmas in 1962. Delivered to the front door via USPS parcel post. Hopped on our Western Flyers on the 26th and rode out into the hinterlands for a day of shooting. No papers.

yep, I got 'em about then too..... just too young to "place the order" myself

I did go into the sporting goods store almost every Saturday and pick up my weekly box of .22 ammo, but I was over 10 years old (and they knew me)

In short, put a sock in it Bloomberg -- this is a knowing and intentional fraud your "news organization" is running upon the public:

Bloomberg wrote:Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s name on a U.S. government travel-watch list should have kept him from boarding an airplane without some scrutiny, yet he could purchase semi-automatic handguns with none.

Local and federal law enforcement officials either don’t know or aren’t yet saying how Tsarnaev and his brother, accused of bombing the Boston Marathon, obtained the guns they later used to kill a university police officer and critically injure a mass-transit officer. They didn’t apply for Massachusetts gun permits, as required by state law.

The reason they're not saying how they got the guns is that there was no legal way for them to do so.

Here's the reality folks -- while it is legal for a resident of one state to cross a state line and buy a rifle in another, provided the laws of both states are complied with, it is not legal for a person to obtain a handgun in any state other than the one in which one resides.
....
The reason the question hasn't been answered is that there was no lawful way for a person to sell or otherwise transfer to these people the handguns, as they required a license to acquire them in Massachusetts and it is flatly unlawful to transfer a handgun, whether by a dealer or private party, where the buyer and seller do not reside in the same state.

As such there was no lawful means by which anyone could have transferred the handguns to these two and there was also no lawful means by which they could have bought them, since they didn't have the required permits.