So, it appears that the Tsarnaev brothers didn't legally own the

[flamin lib]

firearms that fired 200 rounds at the Police in Friday's gunfight. Tamerlin was denied US citizenship because of a felony assault case so he could not have passed a background check. Dzhokhar met the age and residency requirements but had not applied for a license to buy or taken the safety course.

We can safely assume that they purchased their guns from a private source without a background check and who, if found, cannot be charged with trafficking and punished for selling to a felon.

If your Senator was one of those who blocked gun legislation please drop them an email and phone them to point this out to them.

[femmocrat]

1. I read elsewhere that the younger one was underage.

The law in MA requires a gun-owner to be 21. Also read that the applications are not kept on file, so there is no record of whether or not they applied for a license.

Saw it on DU earlier. If I can find it, I'll post the link.

On edit: I found this article.... not the same one, but says pretty much the same thing:

'Officials said Sunday that neither of the suspects had gun permits to legally obtain the firearms employed against police. Nineteen year old Dzhokhar would not have been eligible to obtain a permit under Massachusetts law, which requires a person to be 21 or older.'

Link: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-boston-suspect-beginning-to-communicate-with-authorities?ref=fpb

[flamin lib]

2. Age limit is 18 or 15 with parental supervision. 21 for concealed carry. nt

[femmocrat]

5. Thanks.

Guess the "parental supervision" wasn't an option!

[oldhippie]

18. That is for possession, it is 21 to buy ....

... a handgun from an FFL. That is Federal law, Mass may be more restrictive.

[Marrah_G]

3. The younger was not old enough for a license in MA.

[onehandle]

4. I want full details as the investigation progresses. The Senate Vote of Shame will called out. nt

[hack89]

6. In Massachusetts all private sales are registered with the state with a form FA10

Q: Should a special form be used when selling guns through a private sale?

A: The state form required for private sales is an FA10 Form. The FA10 replaced what was known as the "Blue Card" previously used for private sales. This is essentially the same form used by dealers except that instructions are included with each private sale form. This form can be obtained from any police department. The seller must fill out the form and forward it to the Firearms Record Bureau (FRB) within seven days of the transaction.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/frb/frequently-asked-questions.html

They also have a database of every gun sale or transfer.

The Firearms Record Bureau (FRB) maintains a database of licenses issued and records of firearms sales by gun dealers, as well as private transfers of weapons. The FRB is a valuable resource for the public and law enforcement agencies to answer questions regarding the Commonwealth's gun laws.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/frb/

[flamin lib]

9. Unless they drove to a nearby state. nt

[hack89]

12. Which would be a federal and state crime.

there is no way they legally purchased those guns.

[flamin lib]

21. A crime that cannot be detected until someone dies. Full background checks with serious

penalties for not doing one will help.

I am really fucking tired of all the bitching about enforcing unenforceable laws.

[hack89]

24. I support universal background checks.

my state already requires them.

[flamin lib]

25. Thanks for that. Uselessly pointing out that a crime was committed after a crime was

committed is not conducive to conversation. Particularly when the gun lobby writes laws for the legislature to pass that are intentionally unenforceable.

[graham4anything]

55. The dealer should be sentenced to the same crime. So should the manufacturer.

[hack89]

56. Any dealer that sells a gun without a background check is committing a crime

the manufacturer has no liability.

[Travis_0004]

76. How is the manufacturer responsible?

Should we arrest the makers of pressure cookers as well?

[Jamastiene]

67. That would depend on which state(s).

NC and Florida have a system where someone who cannot get a gun in NC for various legal reasons can go to Florida and get one.

See more info at link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014441650

[Sgent]

69. That's concealed carry

not the purchase of a firearm.

The only legal way of purchasing a firearm is:

1) Purchase it in your state of residence from a private seller, or,
2) Purchase it from an FFL in your state of residence.

Any other method of purchase is illegal for the buyer and the seller.

For instance, I can buy a gun online, but they cannot ship it legally across state lines to me -- it has to be shipped to a FFL and a background check executed before I receive the gun.

[hack89]

73. That has nothing to do with buying guns.

It is talking about concealed carry licenses.

[Recursion]

13. Which would be a crime

The practical difficulty of enforcing these laws is not a distraction; it's the primary objection to them, at least for me.

[flamin lib]

22. Yes, and toddlers are still molested so I supposr there should be no laws thar prohibit child abuse.

That is the most stupid, insipid and gun coddling argument there is.

[Recursion]

61. Every time I see this response, it gets stupider and stupider

You probably actually can't see the difference, which is a big part of the problem. So go ahead thinking that equivalence makes sense...

Here's a hint: what is difficult to enforce about laws against child molestation? Hmmm? Anything? No? That's why your response doesn't make any sense.

[flamin lib]

79. Wha??? Sorry but ya' lost me. nt

[Progressive dog]

54. Try Somalia for no laws

That rates up near the dumbest argument ever made. Is it posted on the NRA site, sounds like a LaPierrism.

[Recursion]

62. This response gets stupider every time I read it

*facepalm*

Because, you know, saying laws should be enforceable is the same thing as saying there shouldn't be laws. Do people think before they type?

[Progressive dog]

64. So you don't OBJECT to laws that you claim are difficult to enforce

Stuff stays on the intertubes and when you write it, you can't get away with pretending you didn't.
First you said
"The practical difficulty of enforcing these laws is not a distraction; it's the primary objection to them, at least for me."
Then you said
'Because, you know, saying laws should be enforceable is the same thing as saying there shouldn't be laws. Do people think before they type?'
So first you tell us that you object to laws that are difficult to enforce and then you tell us that that is "saying there shouldn't be laws".
So I took your post to mean that you don't believe in laws and you have confirmed my belief.

[Recursion]

65. *those particular laws* are difficult to practically enforce, which is an argument against them

Not against "laws" in general. Not even against gun laws in general.

[cali]

7. or sadly they drove a couple of hours to Vermont

no license or permit needed. Don't need to be a resident. The only requirement is that you're over 16.

<snip>

Vermont, however, stands out from the pack because it allows people as young as 16 to conceal carry without parental permission, as well as buy handguns. So a Vermont teenager aged 16 can’t legally go to an R-rated movie alone or join the military, but he can buy a handgun and carry it in his jeans and be completely within the limits of the law.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/



It is incredibly easy to buy a gun here.

[Recursion]

10. In which case they broke the law

Why we have such a difficult to enforce law on the books is a valid question, but the War on Drugs doesn't give me much confidence that we'll fix that any time soon.

[cali]

15. yes, they would have broken the law

but Vermont makes it way too easy to do so.

[Recursion]

17. It's one of those harm mitigation things

We (probably) all agree no realistic laws would have stopped two people this determined. But universal background checks would have made it at least marginally more difficult for them. But when I asked in an OP yesterday "what are we willing to concede to get that policy?" the answer was crickets (well, the answer was a series of stirring rants about how we will concede nothing), which suggests to me we would rather keep this issue around as a punching bag than actually fix it.

[Sgent]

70. They broke federal law

not just Vermont law.

Anyone who sold them a gun without evidence of their residence in Vermont also broke the law.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. You're about to hear a lot about Mass gun laws...less about NH and Vermont gun shows

There can be little doubt that the firepower possessed by these two murderous jackasses was illegal for them to possess under Massachusetts gun laws. The younger Tsarnaev had an M-4 carbine in the boat with him, fer chrissakes. Somehow, that means to gunners that gun laws should be abolished, or something. Who knows what these fanatics are on about at any given time in their incoherent rants. What they won't say is that these guns all started as legal, and entered the illicit pipeline through dealers and manufacturers and owners who made money off those transactions, and knew damn well that the firearms were entering the black market on those sales. Or, worse, that these were "legal" private purchases on the "gray" market untouchable by state law in the Commonwealth (i.e., NH gun shows or points even further south). Just as every gun nut fanatic knows damn well that Indiana dealers supply the Chicago gangs with guns through outright trafficking and avoidance schemes, and then turn around and laugh at Chicago's gun laws, everybody knows that Boston is one of the endpoints for the licit-to-illicit market in New England, but they'll laugh at Mass gun laws. For anybody with a lick of sense, the interstate conundrum, means that we desperately need beefed up Federal anti-trafficking statutes (defeated in the Senate along with background checks last week), including detailed inventory control on ALL gun dealers. For lunatic gun nuts, it means we don't need state laws! Instead of dealing with how these guns actually reached these terrorists, you'll get endless minutia on Mass law. Typical gun nut asshole bullshit, in other words.

[hack89]

11. There are no legal private sales that cross state lines without a federal background check

any gun sale that crosses a state line without going through a licensed gun dealer is illegal under federal law.

If they bought their guns at gun shows at NH and Vermont then the committed state and federal crimes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. "they committed state and federal crimes"

And they would have done so with relative ease.

[hack89]

16. Certainly strengthens the case for universal background checks. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. I would fact check it first

Several important errors.

My senators voted correctly

[malaise]

20. They did not fire 200 rounds

200 round were exchanged. Still the murderous scumbags did have illegal weapons - don't forget to thank the NRA, the Senate and the House of Representatives

[flamin lib]

23. Okay, only 100. m That makes it all just fine, right? nt

[sandmann]

26. Out of the gun legislation that was just blocked

what part would have prevented them from obtaining the weapons?

[flamin lib]

27. Universal background checks and penalties for trafficking would be something. nt

[sandmann]

31. We already have

background checks and penalties for the illegal trafficking of weapons. This legislation didn't build upon existing law in any significant way, so using this event to call our Senator and complain about them voting no would be meaningless. Especially seeing how Mass. law concerning background checks is more universal than the proposed legislation and it didn't stop them.

[flamin lib]

32. That is a crock of shit. Private sellers do not have a background check requirement. 40% of

sales do not have background checks. Even so 30 states do not report to NICS. The Penalty for providing guns to someone who can't pass a background check is almost nothing.

There's a lot that needs to be fixed and yes, it can be done through legislation.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people? I'm ok with that. Lets check people who buy guns.

[sandmann]

35. Please, let's have a factual conversation

I know the talking point is that no background checks are needed at guns show, but that is a lie. The majority of sales at gun shows are through a licensed dealer and a background check is required. The 40% meme has been proven outdated and false.

Barring private sellers from gun shows is probably not a bad idea, but it won't stop the sale of the gun. And no, the answer isn't to just do nothing, sigh. The answer is actually to make it easier for a private seller to conduct a background check.
I go to many gun shows and there aren't that many private sellers really, a promoter booth that conducts background checks could possibly work. Wouldn't stop people from meeting down the road though, but at least it's a start.

Not reporting to NICS and the penalties are government problems, not individuals, so yes, legislation for the states would be helpful.

Checking people who buy guns is fine, but we have to deal with reality. We already have background checks for businesses, but to be perfectly honest, background checks for private sales would be virtually unenforceable so we need to make it so people won't mind or be inconvienced.

[flamin lib]

38. I did not say a motherfucking thing about gun shows.

People molest toddlers. No point in having laws about molesting children, right?

Reality is that congressctitters like mine (Ted Cruz & John Cornyn) vote against their constituent's interests and will continue to as long as we don't speak out.

Please take your gungeon talking points back to RKBA.

[sandmann]

41. I see

Stuck on the idiotic talking-points you have been fed? My bad. Thought maybe you were capable of intelligent discussion.

You know, it's funny. Pro 2nd Amendment people offer you gun control ideas and you choose to hate rather than work together. Not very serious about fixing things, are you.

[flamin lib]

42. Really? That's the best ya' got? Personal attack?

You've offered not a goddam thing.

Pony up sandy. Tell us how it's done.

I'm reading your past posts and so far all I see is gun fetishist troll. Show me something to make me apologize.

[sandmann]

43. To be honest

I really don't give a crap enough about you to care if you apologize about anything.

As far as what I have offered? I gave you a very workable idea that would cut into the private sales of guns without background checks, that you guys are pissing your pants over nowadays. Many other pro rights people have also given some ideas.
But rather than listen to ideas that could actually work, you guys would rather scream "gun fetishist troll" at anybody who disagrees with the uninformed talking points you parrot.

[flamin lib]

47. I didn't see your solution. Repost or link to it. nt

[whttevrr]

48. Ooh... Is this a troll?

I signed up just before election time and thought I remembered there being a troll reporting function here?

Am I remembering right?

[flamin lib]

49. Use the alert function on a post. I personally do not alert and am not ready make a decision in

in this case as DU really is a big tent.

Like divided government? Vote Democratic, we don't even agree with ourselves.

[Eleanors38]

50. Soon you will have to take your "talking points" to RKBA.

You enjoy three (3) fora/groups which which to post your gun-politics. So, we'll wait for that to become two (2).

You would do well to try and come up with some practical approaches rather than issuing the umpteenth NRAtalkingPoint(TM). Perhaps you will discover that if you want expanded B.G. checks, don't start off with talk of bans. Start off with talk of -- voila! -- expanded B.G. checks. And if you can find out why, if the original language in the B.G. bill was so onerous that the ACLU took issue with it, anyone would put put such language in a bill if not to either kill it or find yet another backdoor to registration, and please post it. I mean, WHO put that stuff in there? I really don't know.

[flamin lib]

53. Ya totally lost me. Please elaborate on the ACLU and registry.

Exactly what in the watered down background check was so onerous?

Inquiring minds wanr to know . . . .

[Eleanors38]

59. The proposed legislation treated b.g. checks differently...

if you were a person purchasing from a non-dealer. Under current law, when you fill out a 4473, and subsequently submit to a FFL's b.g. check (NICS), the data is erased (in most cases) within 24 hours. If you are an individual (in the proposed) who purchases from a non-dealer, but submits to the b.g. test, the data would have been kept for a much longer period of time. The ACLU objected on these grounds:

1) The "new group" of NICS-checked purchasers would be treated differently, and accumulation of this data over a longer period of time could be abused for other purposes; and
2) Creating a legal minefield for persons who loan or gift a weapon to another.

"...American Civil Liberties Union has raised concerns about both records and background checks. “You just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected,” Chris Calabrese, an ACLU privacy lobbyist, told The Daily Caller last week. Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has made it clear that a “national gun registry” is illegal and won’t be part of any Democratic gun bill.

"They might be too broad. Another concern raised by the ACLU’s Calabrese was that, if a “transfer” of guns is defined too broadly, people with good intentions could unwittingly become criminals. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law. … They don’t intend to transfer a gun or they don’t think that’s what they’re doing, but under the law they can be defined as making a transfer...”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/the-case-against-gun-background-checks/


Schumer's reassurances to the contrary, when you have this kind of thing pop up at the last moment, it indicates at best a sloppy approach to legislation, and at worst a backdoor way to get a registration list. I mean, the ACLU, for goodness sakes.

[flamin lib]

78. Thanks for the link. However citing a source based on

quotes from the NRA, Rand Paul and John Cornyn doesn't buy a lot of credibility.

The ACLU objections may have some merit but ignorance of the law has never been a defense AND the final compromise excluded transactions between relatives, friends and "neighbors" (however you define neighbors).

Sorry, but the "concerns" you cited just don't hold up for me. Kinda sounds like NRA propaganda to me.

[The Straight Story]

68. Ok, I'll play your game:

"People molest toddlers. No point in having laws about molesting children, right? "

How many laws exist currently regarding the use of guns in the commission of a crime? Zero? Uh...no.

People rob, kill, rape, murder, etc (sometimes with the aid of a gun) - there are laws against such that we all support.

In CA they are allocating money needed to enforce current gun laws.

If you want this to be a higher priority then cough up the money to enforce the tons of laws already on the books that we don't have the funds to enforce.

You can make 1,000 more laws but without the money to enforce them it is a waste of time.

How many people speed everyday on our roads? Millions. How many get caught and fined? A few overall.

More police, radars, etc would help to enforce that law - but some folks want new laws because the ones already there aren't being enforced (ie, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to have someone in DC tell you there is a new law even though no one will be there to make it worthwhile).

Pony up some more dollars if you want results because no matter what laws you make without funding all your doing is making yourself feel like you did something useful at the end of the day.

[flamin lib]

77. I'm down with enforcing existing laws. I also know that

Many can't be enforced by design.

The BATF&E hasn't had a director in 6 years and is funded at the same level it was 20 years ago before it had the E added to its responsibility.

The BATF&E is charged with enforcing gun laws but is forbidden by law from asking gun sellers to account for inventory.

The FBI maintains the NICS but 30 states refuse to forward records to the database so even when a check is done there is less than a 50% chance the records are up to date.

All transactions through a FFL have a background check. About 80,000/year fail and should be prosecuted but records of the check must be destroyed in 24 hours. How the fuck can anyone investigate a crime in that time period?

More money? Oh fuck yeah! The US is the lowest taxed country of the industrialized nations (as % GDP) and we keep cutting taxes anyway.

All that said if there are no background checks at the fed level and no harsh penalties for trafficking on half of gun transfers how can anything be enforced?

The 2nd Amendment is a federal law. Gun regulation MUST be a federal issue, applicable to all states equally or it's all unenforceable.

By design it's unenforceable.

[Skittles]

52. OMG not another one

they really scatter when the light is shined on them

[SoCalDem]

28. anyone who wants a gun, will get one

if they want to kill you with it, they will find a way

[flamin lib]

29. Yeah, and anyone who wants to molest a child will and anyone who wants to speed will

and anyone who wants to commit rape will and anyone who wants to simply punch you in the face will.

Waste of time, fuck it.

Someone kills and eats your loved one, no point in legislating against it. After all, it won't bring your loved one back, right?

Flawless logic.

[SoCalDem]

30. not really..just incredibly tired of the whole gun-stuff

nothing will change until we have different legislators, and that won't happen until we end the massive lobbying racket..

we can hope for more, but for now, nothing will change anytime soon..

[flamin lib]

33. That's why we write our reps, contribute to and work for campaigns and generally make noise nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. Yes, but people aren't deemed unfit to be around children

unless they're first convicted of something criminal.

[flamin lib]

45. Yes, but people who want to open daycare centers have lots of restrictions and

people who want to own pets are subject to an equal number of rules and regulations. Why are guns so sacrosanct that NOTHING can pass muster for the betterment of society?

Kinda' hollow comparison.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. "Why are guns so sacrosanct..."

Self defense --unlike running a daycare center -- is a human right; guns are the tool through which that is realized.

[Lex]

34. Sure, why have any laws anyway? Criminals will find a way to do whatever they want.

Meh, only law abiding citizens abide by the law.

[AngryAmish]

36. That is kinda the point about legalizing pot

It is illegal in the US to possess and sell mj. Yet it is done all the time everywhere. The vast majority of pot smokers are responsible and should not be treated like a criminal just because they like to get high.

Likewise, most people who possess guns are not criminals. They don't hurt anyone and are responsible with their weapons.

So what is the point in making something illegal when all you are doing is penalizing people who don't hurt anyone? MJ users and gun owners don't think they are criminals. And quite frankly most of them are not.

[former9thward]

37. This OP assumes the brothers bought their weapons.

There is no evidence of that. They could have been supplied the weapons. No evidence has been given the public.

[flamin lib]

39. And this reply is a red herring. nt

[former9thward]

40. You would know.

[flamin lib]

46. Yeah, I would. Been dealing with falasies a long time in the gungeon. nt

[Eleanors38]

51. Did you mean "falsies?" So pro-2A women are compensating, too?

[madville]

58. Many variables in this scenario

They could have been stolen, someone could have purchased for them (straw purchase like the older brother's wife, a friend or a sibling for example), inherited from the parents before they returned overseas, purchased from a private seller in another state and brought back to Massachusetts, etc, etc.

All those variables are already illegal as well.

[marshall]

60. They stole one off the police officer they shot in the head

And probably got whatever ammo he had.

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. Really? I don't think you're correct on that.

Here's what Boston local news had to say about it:

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. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun/

"...they couldn't get it and left..."

It's also been reported that they had two handguns and an M4 carbine, so this whole theory that they attacked Officer Collier to get his gun doesn't even make much sense. they had guns: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/the-tsarnaevs-and-their-guns.html

[marshall]

71. It's what is being reported

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun/

[alcibiades_mystery]

72. You do understand that that's the story I cited, and it explicitly says they DIDN'T GET HIS GUN?

What a weird response. In case you're still having difficulty, here's what it says in the very link you're providing (which is the same as the one I cited in the post you're disputing!):

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. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun/

Your link says they didn't get Collier's gun!

So, do you believe the report that you yourself cite as evidence?

[marshall]

74. I understand now

They kills him for his gun,but then couldn't figure out how to get it out of the holster. What a clever invention, and probably thwarted their plans to to take out more citizens.

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. So where'd they get those guns?

[spanone]

63. i wrote to both of my republican senators and shamed them.

lamar alexander - bob corker

got a form 'thank you' letter from corker and no response whatsoever from alexander.

fuck 'em