Page 1 of 2
Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licenses
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:45 am
by gthaustex
Weird. Imagine that. The Boston bombing suspects did not follow the required laws for firearm use and registration.....
The antis won't see the irony in this and how more checks, registration, etc. won't make a bit of difference. Criminals already don't follow the law.
http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-su ... 48018.html
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:53 am
by dpleban
Criminals will be criminals
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:35 am
by anygunanywhere
I find this difficult to believe. What is the world coming to?
Anygunanywhere
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:55 am
by mr surveyor
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.
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:22 am
by VMI77
gthaustex wrote:Weird. Imagine that. The Boston bombing suspects did not follow the required laws for firearm use and registration.....
The antis won't see the irony in this and how more checks, registration, etc. won't make a bit of difference. Criminals already don't follow the law.
http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-su ... 48018.html
Won't see the "irony?"....are you kidding, they think "irony" is the metal used to make guns, and they're already attempting to use the not having a license thing to justify more controls:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... HB20130421
But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived, a fact that may add to the national debate over current gun laws. Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, legislation that opponents argued would do nothing to stop criminals from buying guns illegally
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... z2R9aLSDwS
The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:58 am
by Jumping Frog
When they do a firearms trace, how would you like to be the last owner in the chain that they can trace?
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:37 pm
by ShepherdTX
Jumping Frog wrote:When they do a firearms trace, how would you like to be the last owner in the chain that they can trace?
I must confess. I would LOVE it if the guns turned out to be traced back to Fast and Furious.
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:38 pm
by A-R
They likely didn't have explosives permits either.
So what?
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:57 pm
by JALLEN
So put 'em in jail for weapons violations, laws already on the books.
Julio and his pals down in the barrio don't give a flip what the Legislature does or thinks, or their silly rules. If they get caught, they get a full ride scholarship to grad school.
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:00 pm
by StewNTexas
Maybe someone can explain it to me, as I just can't get my head around it.
Why is the guy they have in Boston still being called a suspect?
I think I know the reason this was started many years ago, to keep the presumption of innocence going until a trial gets underway, but I still don't understand what is being done in this case.
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:55 pm
by A-R
StewNTexas wrote:Maybe someone can explain it to me, as I just can't get my head around it.
Why is the guy they have in Boston still being called a suspect?
I think I know the reason this was started many years ago, to keep the presumption of innocence going until a trial gets underway, but I still don't understand what is being done in this case.
Libel ... can't call him "the bomber" (outside of fair comment doctrine) until he's adjudicated as such (conviction, confession, plea bargain etc ) ... of course, IANAL but I did work in journalism in my younger years.
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:12 pm
by The Annoyed Man
gthaustex wrote:Weird. Imagine that. The Boston bombing suspects did not follow the required laws for firearm use and registration.....
The antis won't see the irony in this and how more checks, registration, etc. won't make a bit of difference. Criminals already don't follow the law.
http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-su ... 48018.html
Well, as long as they didn't transgress any gun-free safety zones......
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:24 pm
by remington79
ShepherdTX wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:When they do a firearms trace, how would you like to be the last owner in the chain that they can trace?
I must confess. I would LOVE it if the guns turned out to be traced back to Fast and Furious.
I posted this on another forum that asked where did they get their guns. I replied with "From the Mexican Cartels who got them courtesy of Eric Holder."
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:30 pm
by K.Mooneyham
And this is just another fine example of why I despise the mass media and most of the so-called journalists. The vast bulk of their stories are slanted to one viewpoint, the statist/collectivist viewpoint. They feel the citizenry must be controlled, and its their "job" to convince as much of the citizenry of that as possible. Disgusting.
Re: Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licen
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:33 pm
by OldGrumpy
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
