Store that sold Sandy Hook gun loses license

[trailmonkee]

Source: cnn

(CNN) - A Connecticut store that sold a gun used to kill 26 people last December at Sandy Hook Elementary School no longer can legally sell firearms.

Debora Seifert, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told CNN on Friday the Riverview Gun Sales shop in East Windsor, Connecticut, lost its federal firearms license December 20 -- six days after the massacre about 65 miles southwest in Newtown.

That day, after killing his mother in their Newtown home, Adam Lanza drove to the elementary school and shot dead 20 young children and six adults using a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223-caliber model XM15 rifle.

The shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, bought the Bushmaster firearm two years ago at Riverview Gun Sales, according to Detective Matthew Carl of the East Windsor Police Department.

The ATF spokeswoman did not comment on why the store's license was revoked, including if it had anything to do with the Newtown rampage.

But Carl said "probably the reason the ATF raided the store on December 20 was for poor keeping of the records."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/05/us/connecticut-sandy-hook-gun-store/index.html

[nolabear]

1. One down, an infinite number to go.

But one down's one down.

[onehandle]

2. All gun stores that sell any guns related to crimes should be shut down.

That would be the end.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. Your argument has no legal recourse.

You can't punish a seller for a crime not committed.

There are plenty of good reasons for shutting down a lot of gun shops. Most commonly it appears that they are bad at keeping track of their firearms.

[golfguru]

4. That would not stop gun violence

There are already estimated 290 million guns out there in the hands of civilians.
What could help is checking gun situation in a households with known mental problem person. That would be a start.

Another thing which could help is make Doctors responsible to report people with psychological problems who threaten violence. Such a law could have stopped the Colorado movie theater massacre.

But the critical step to reduce gun violence in cities like Chicago is to make mandatory 15 year prison term for any crime related to guns, including possession of unlicensed guns.

[hack89]

6. If the gun dealer obeys the laws then no

I have no problem shutting down dirty or incompetent gun dealers. But if they do everything the law requires them to do then they are not responsible for how someone uses the gun.

[CTyankee]

8. I would think that an essentially moral person would have a twinge of guilt, having sold

a product that was used in the slaughter of human beings. But, then, we do have the Biblical image of Pontius Pilate publicly washing his hands...

[hack89]

9. Do you think liquior store owners feel the same way?

selling a product that has produced so much human misery?

[CTyankee]

10. There are at least sensible laws around liquor store sales and around drunk driving to

offset the deleterious effects of alcohol. We need similar laws to do a similar offset for guns, since we have a SCOTUS decision that many of us feel is reprehensible. But those efforts to offset are being vigorously opposed and not enough gun enthusiasts have thrown their moral weight behind them. As a matter of fact, I can't name ANY right off the bat. There was Joe Manchin and, ahem, what happened there?

[hack89]

11. Yet where I live, alchohol kills many more people than guns

so perhaps those laws aren't as strict as they should be. Should our local liquor store owners feel responsible?

[CTyankee]

12. alcohol has beneficial health effects as well. As a society we have a lot more problems with

alcohol than other advanced nations where people drink more sensibly...and ain't in interesting that those societies also severely limit gun ownership? Even in Norway, where gun ownership is very high, only one incident of mass killings occurred. ONE. The Norwegians agree to govern themselves sensibly, putting far more restrictions on guns than we do, even supporting random home inspections of gun safety regs by local police. Yet Norwegian gun owners target shoot and hunt.

[hack89]

14. Norway also has good healthcare, education and a robust social safety net

as well as rational drug laws.

[CTyankee]

16. I'm running out the door to do my volunteer ESOL tutoring but I will add to my

previous post that we also heavily tax alcohol, at least here in CT. I am a wine drinker but I believe that taxing it is a good policy and shows responsibility to offset the cost of those who abuse it. Similar to cigarettes where the limitations are even more severe and getting more so all the time...with a decrease of smoking as a result...

[CTyankee]

30. I find it interesting that a gun loving country like Norway would have those laws,

especially given the history of that country with the Nazi invasion there. This is a country that actually experienced a totalitarian takeover that seems to be the fear of gun lovers here, and despite having that experience, Norway still enacts strong gun controls. Don't you think it would be more "rational" to expect them to do just the opposite (if the premise U.S. gun owners have for arming themselves is indeed valid)?

[hack89]

37. They also have a strong tradition of strong central governments

America has a distrust of strong central governments. Norwegians gave the power to strictly regulate gun to their government - we did not.

[CTyankee]

38. Norway has a constitution and governs democratically at all levels of government.

I fail to see much that is so wrong with their approach, which strikes me more as a rational way of governing, rather than an outdated 18th century way of looking at it, at a vastly different time in our country's size and imbalances in the distribution of power, land and wealth (and of course the hideous exploitation of slaves). Norway has emerged from WW2 as a modern, functioning, and highly progressive state in terms of wealth distribution, resulting in far less poverty, ignorance, hatred and violence. Something is really wrong with just shrugging it off the way you did with your reply. Either you haven't thought this thing through or don't care too. I am troubled by either explanation. If I am wrong, I am willing to listen to your explanation of why.

[hack89]

39. If you want to fundamentally change both our culture and our Constitution

then knock yourself out.

I just don't see the point. We have to work within our present cultural and political realities if we want to make changes right now. I guess it is ok to dream about what could be, but only as long as it does not cloud your understanding of what is.

If I could reorder America, I certainly would. But I would not start with gun laws - we have bigger social ills, that once solved, would significantly reduce gun deaths. Healthcare, education, rational drug laws, wealth equality - all of these would do more than focusing on inanimate lumps of steel. You want to be like Norway - I am with you. But stop nibbling at the edges of the problem and address root causes.

[CTyankee]

41. Maybe, just maybe, Norway figured that they could save themselves lots of trouble

and lives by having guns better controlled, while still letting their gun loving population have their guns for sport and hunting. Your tortured explanation to the contrary, we are doing everything we can to stop that commonsense way of thinking and acting on our problems. It is US who are knocking ourselves out trying to twist an outdated, 18th century constitutional provision (whose meaning has been distorted grotesquely by a regressive, right wing SCOTUS) into our modern state. WE are the ones who look stupid and have clouded understanding of what "is." Newtown tells us what "is." Does that work for you?

[hack89]

42. Ok - but so what?

We are not Norway. If you want us to be like Norway then you are going to have to change our culture. Once you convince enough people then we will be like Norway.

But all of that is completely irrelevant in the here and now. Any gun control effort has to take in to account our social and political reality. It is clear that America is deeply divided on the issue - perhaps the answer is to address gun violence indirectly instead of head on. Find issues and solutions that have broad public support. But battering head on into a wall of public opposition and then railing over the notion that some people see the issue in a different light will not accomplish anything.

[CTyankee]

43. Haven't you been keeping up with the polls? They show that American public opinion

STRONGLY supports sensible gun regulations. Background checks at 90% and strong majorities on other gun laws. I just don't understand why you say something so patently and provably wrong.

I can't believe that you haven't kept up with public opinion polls on this, since it is one of your major issues. America is NOT deeply divided. There is more support than ever for gun control in the light of Newtown.

It's been in all the newspapers and on TV and the Internet. I cannot for the life of me understand how you don't know this?

[hack89]

44. How Democrats Misread Polling on Gun Control

So, why aren't the polling numbers on gun control swaying more members of Congress? Many of the poll numbers don't capture the nuances of public opinion. For example, there is a significant difference in the level of passion of voters on the two sides of the issue. While members of the National Rifle Association or conservative gun owners home in on this issue, gun-control proponents may not register that sort of excitement.

The level of voter passion may also depend on where the respondents live. In January, there were 44 gun homicides in Chicago. In 2011, there were only 40 gun homicides in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont combined. The political pressure for members of Congress from those states is much less than it would be for a senator from Illinois. In fact, Sens. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and Mark Kirk, a Republican, both from Illinois, are two of the lawmakers who have come out strongly for some of these gun-control laws.

Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, the director of social policy and politics for Third Way, said her group has conducted polling in some of these states where gun violence isn’t a major issue. When they asked if they thought policies would be effective in reducing crime, most respondents said it wouldn’t. When asked if legislation was addressing a problem in their community or somewhere far away, most respondents went with the latter. The support for gun-control policies then is “really high but shallow,” Hatalsky said.

“People will support this and they think it’s a good idea, but they don’t feel super deeply about it,” Hatalsky said. “They’re not convinced that it will necessarily work and that it will work to change their own lives.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/how-democrats-misread-polling-on-gun-control-20130321

Politicians are the best barometer of public sentiment - political self preservation is a powerful motivator. You may think that politicians are misreading what their constituents want regarding gun control - I don't.

[CTyankee]

45. Why are you relying so heavily on Third Way? This is DU not a RW website.

And anyway, that last quote by the Third Way spokesperson was not all that supportive of your view. What she said could just as easily been understood as people not feeling that the laws go FAR enough and are discouraged by the intransigence of members of Congress (due to lobbying by gun manufacturers) and their "influence" ( read "money) on Congress. That's pretty dismal. “They’re not convinced that it will necessarily work and that it will work to change their own lives.” Even if that is true overall (which I doubt), it doesn't prove your point, it simply highlights their doubt that the gun lobby can be overcome by our Congress. It really underscores the whole rationale behind EFFECTIVE gun control laws. And THAT is a big problem in our democracy.

I find it interesting that you say "there is a significant difference in the level of passion of voters on the two sides of the issue." But this too is contradicted in the polls when people are actually ASKED questions about gun control issues they want to see enacted. Their response has been clear: they want MORE not less gun control.

When will you free yourself from Third Way or whatever stuff you read and get to the real news about how the American people REALLY feel about gun control? If they are depressed about it, it is because of those who are standing in the way of progress.

My final point to you and your brethren in DU's Gungeon: if you are as SERIOUS about gun safety laws in this country as you say you are, you must take a stand. Do not wither and faint upon your couch. You-know-what or get off the pot, excuse my french. Take a damn stand. Man up and take a lead in what you love to call "sensible gun safety." If you are serious about this issue, it is up to YOU and your followers to take the LEAD and effect change to save lives in this country. Hell, Nixon went to China. You can do this. Just give a shit and try.

[hack89]

46. How about getting off your high horse

and stop dictating what I have to do.

I give a shit about many things. Pleasing you is not one of them.

[CTyankee]

48. sorry if I hurt your feelings...it just frustrates me that this debate rages while people

die. Those kids were the last straw for so many of us (altho my last straw died a while back from a gsw to her left temple). So, yes, it is personal for lots of us...

[hack89]

49. You didn't hurt my feelings

around here you get called a lot worse if you own guns. I support every proposed gun control law except for the AWB and registration - and I have rational reasons for doing so. I also have articulated many times those things besides gun control I believe would address root causes and significantly reduce gun deaths.

One reason this debate rages (at least on DU) is many anti-gun posters refuse to respect my views, refuse to accept any disagreement and view gun owners as nothing more than callous pre-criminals indifferent to the suffering of others and just itching for a reason to shot someone. If you want to know why the discussion is so polarized look no further than the gun threads in DU. Look at the vitriol aimed at gun owners and you will understand why we have no real desire to reach across to help you. Many here want capitulation, not cooperation.

You are politer than most but the underlying disdain still shines through.

[CTyankee]

50. The reason for the so-called "disdain" is when we don't see gun owners really

take charge of their own ideas for reform and create the thing you say you want to happen. We too often see a reversion to the "defensive crouch" or the cries that it is our "rhetoric" that is keeping reform from happening from within your ranks. To which I say: That is unfortunate. But all the more reason for you to start your own organization that supports gun rights and also supports gun safety regulations. It isn't going to be easy. When was taking a brave stand against people inside as well as outside your comfort zone going to be easy? But like so many things in life it is part of what we teach our kids: learn how to solve your own problems.

It is downright discouraging to read poll after poll saying Americans want more, not fewer, gun laws and then to read posts here that argue the exact opposite. It isn't disdain we feel as much as disbelief, dismay and disappointment. You undermine your own sincerity.

It is also discouraging to read your "why we have no real desire to reach across to help you." That is not what I am asking. I am asking you to have the courage of YOUR convictions and seek fellowship with those who share your belief in what you think would be sensible gun laws. Don't do it to help US. Do it because you believe yours is the right way to address the problem.

[hack89]

51. But I do support sensible gun laws

I also oppose bad gun laws. That is where the rub is. That is what we fight about. Many gun control advocates are not willing to accept that there are legitimate uses for firearms and that responsible gun ownership is not only possible but is the norm.

Gun rights are not a high priority to me - beyond posting here, I do not spend time advocating for or against guns. Where I live, guns are not an issue - like most Americans I live in a safe area where gun violence is practically none existent. I have teenage kids - what kills kids in Rhode Island are alcohol and cars. We have a serious teenage drug and alcohol problem that is getting worse every year - that is what I spend my scarce free time on. That is the problem I have decided to help fix. Beyond that, I put mental health and smoking as bigger issues to fix - my family has a history mental illness that has caused much misery while smoking killed my father. You have made another choice, which is fine - there are plenty of problems to be solved.

I will vote for Dems every time I vote. All my elected officials support gun control. You will have to be satisfied with that.

[CTyankee]

54. My being satisfied is not a real issue to me.

Everyone makes their own way in life. It sounds like you have your priorities. I would probably be voting along the lines you vote, were I to live in RI. We have entertwined issues here in New Haven that are very worrisome to me, even tho my NH neighborhood is quiet and peaceful. They are not easily solved, poverty being at the core of most of them...

[Duckhunter935]

52. well stated

Thank you. I made one comment on the new group and was promptly banned, no warning. I do not see that from gun owners or in the gungeon.

[hack89]

55. The isolation chamber has a hard time with those that disagree

regardless of how benign the comment is.

[WinniSkipper]

56. Question for you

Not meant to provoke or be sarcastic. What was it abut this incident that was "the last straw"?

[CTyankee]

57. I lost a family member to gun violence. It has definitely had an effect on how I look at

the issue of gun control. I struggle with it .

[WinniSkipper]

59. Thank you for the straight forward answer

I am sorry for your loss.

[golfguru]

60. Norway is selling oil like crazy

Norway is a small population country..just under 5 million.
They can afford many things until oil runs out.

[Hoyt]

26. Not sure about that. There is a gun store that does video ads popular in the gungeon.

The owners of the store are a bunch of bigots, and have even gone as far as recommending guns that they said are good defensive weapons if "a brown person wonders across your lawn." I think businesses like that should be hassled until they close, and the store's gun nut customers should be put on a terrorist watch list or something.

Fact is, most gun stores are racist fronts; market guns as tactical weapons (as if we are in a war zone); are run by a bunch of tbaggers; are a gathering place for denizens of our society; etc.

[hack89]

27. Why not. Civil rights are over rated.

it should be easy to get on a government watch list. Why look at individuals when a blanket condemnation based on what they think or own will work just fine.

[Hoyt]

28. These worthless souls and customers are intent on violating civil rights. Your perspective is off.

[A Simple Game]

31. Somebody's perspective is off. Do you think some just buy guns at those stores you

mention because there are no other stores for 50 miles? Maybe they just have the best prices.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions.

[Hoyt]

32. Naw, like most guns stores, they cater to bigots and gun cultists.

[A Simple Game]

33. Foolish me, I thought they may be like most store,

cater to people with money. Who besides you knows about this?

[Hoyt]

35. Money and the desire/need to acquire lethal weapons. Latter is problem some of you won't admit.

Going to a gun store/show is not the same as going to the grocery store, Costco, Macy's, etc.

Folks lined up one week after Sandy Hook for chance to snag an "assault rifle:"




These militia fools acquired their lethal weapons in a gun store, or bought it from some NRA type who believes he's a model citizen:

[hack89]

36. All 100 million gun owners? ok.

I now I know you have you tongue planted firmly in your cheek.

I have never violated anyone's civil rights. Neither have 99.99% of all gun owners.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Consider the implications of the that logic

Any car dealer that sold a car that was later used in a crime get shutdown.

Any store that sold food related to crimes should be shut down

[CTyankee]

17. You know full well the answer to your arguments. Why do you still make them?

Food is a necessity. Cars are a near necessity since we have decided, in our infinite wisdom as a society, that there is something evil about public transit...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Its called Reductio ad absurdum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum With that post, if you will pardon the pun, it was as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

The posters position was patently absurd and I was pointing it out. I could have used dozen more just like it. It boils down to blaming the manufacturer or retailer of something for its later improper use. That is of course, totally absurd.

[primavera]

20. Yet there is an interesting parallel within the law

Bartenders and restaurants can, in many states, be held legally liable for over-serving alcoholic beverages to a clearly drunk individual who then goes out and commits a harm. So the premise of holding the retailer accountable for the misdeeds of a customer is not entirely without precedent.

[sir pball]

21. And I haven't seen anybody opposed to closing dealers who break the law

From what scarce information is available about this situation, the store seemed to have some serious problems with inventory control; that's a perfectly legitimate reason to yank their license and shut 'em down. As would be any one of a number of other things, e.g. not keeping records properly or turning a blind eye to straw purchases (which doesn't seem to be punished as much as it should).

But legally selling a gun later used in a crime isn't and shouldn't be a reason for closure, assuming the dealer did everything correctly.

[CTyankee]

29. I find it interesting that this store's transgressions did not come to light until after

it was discovered to have been the store where Lanza got her gun. I wonder if putting some muscle into laws "encourage" more scrutiny and thus more compliance with laws already in place. If so, that is a good reason to have the laws such as the one we have in CT...

[hack89]

53. The ATF needs to be expanded - that is pretty obvious. nt

[golfguru]

61. Banks in CT should now be easy targets for robbers

A robber will know no customers will be carrying concealed guns.
They take out the lone guard, and take all the money they want.

[jmowreader]

47. Okay, let's get this straight...

If I go to a gun store tomorrow, buy a gun and store it securely in my house, and someone breaks into my house a year later, takes the gun and commits a robbery with it...

or someone buys a gun, stores it in his house, gets married a year later, and the year after that his new wife offs him with the gun for the insurance money...

then the gun store should be shut down? That's really reaching.

OTOH, if a gun store sells a gun to a known meth dealer who uses it in his business, that store should be shut down.

[Loudly]

5. Their website is still up, offering guns for sale. Shut it down! n/t

[valerief]

7. and the gun shows flourish. nt

[midnight]

15. The banks and gun manufactures are not economically viable to prosecute...

So they will go after the small fish...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. What would you prosecute the manufacturers for?

Unless the products are defective there is no standing.

[midnight]

34. You are correct. There is no standing to prosecute an arms manufacture that sells mass quantities

of weapons and ammunition that are either distributed into our country via fast and furious, or flown over our back yards via drones, or just used around the world for profit ... But if there were a just bone in our justice system.... They would find a way around it... They way they found a way to allow corporations to be defined as a person....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. I there is a problem, regulate it. The false flag attacks via of product liability are bullshit

We clearly need to address the level of violence in our society at the root cause level but DiFi clearly does not have the answer

[PolitFreak]

22. Sweet, Sweet Schadenfreude

[Sunlei]

23. How can he even keep a "Federal Farmarms license" without current-tidy records?

He has been in business for 20 years? and the Feds just renew him without requiring even a simple audit of inventory practices and bonded employees.

[Lurks Often]

24. The real reason the store lost it's license

is that a part time employee stole 30+ guns and another person stole 10+ guns and the owner was not aware of some of the thefts until either the police or ATF told him the guns were missing.

It had nothing to do with Sandy Hook or Nancy Lanza.

The two people referenced above received a plea bargain that resulted in time served and 2 years probation. I have read nothing to indicate that the firearms were used in other crimes.

As a CT resident & gun owner, I have no problem with the store owner losing his FFL and neither to do the other gun owners I know who are aware of the details.

[Historic NY]

25. Exactly & the NRA is against strict records keeping...

they think sellers should get a free pass.

Another example of how legal guns become illegal guns....

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/03/19/56928/blindfolded-and-with-one-hand-tied-behind-the-back/

[musical_soul]

58. Not like they can stay in business anyway.

Not after what Adam Lanza did.