Rick Warren: Son Used Unregistered Gun in Suicide.
Source: nyt/ap
Pastor Rick Warren has tweeted that his son killed himself with an unregistered gun purchased through the Internet. . .
Orange County Sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said Thursday that the gun's serial number was scratched off.
It's illegal in California to buy a gun without a background check and purchasers are supposed to register their firearms. Defacing a gun's serial number is a federal offense.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/04/11/us/ap-us-pastors-son-gun.html?hp
Mika
(17,751 posts)babylonsister
(170,960 posts)on the chopping block now, and this will support that, I'm thinking. The Prez certainly isn't against this.
Mika
(17,751 posts)This fits right in w/the TP black helicopter type of conspiracies.
babylonsister
(170,960 posts)of Americans want stricter gun controls. That restores a wee bit of faith for me; the fact that most rethugs are more concerned with NRA ratings and $ v. safety for Americans is also becoming evident.
Mika
(17,751 posts)I was simply commenting that this will bring on the black helicopter gungeoner conspiracies. Y'know, Rick Warren is "in" with the Kenyan.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)buying something on the internet it is expected that the purchased item will be shipped/mailed to the buyer. That has been illegal since 1968.
babylonsister
(170,960 posts)as do millions of people. We're all breaking the law? I don't think so.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)It has been illegal since 1968 to ship guns from seller to buyer. To be legal, the transactions must take place in person.
babylonsister
(170,960 posts)a lot of people have been breaking the law. I really hope buying guns anonymously becomes more difficult to do, really soon.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)CBS/AP) DENVER - In a world where Amazon can track your next book purchase and you must show ID to buy some allergy medicine, James Holmes spent months stockpiling thousands of bullets and head-to-toe ballistic gear without raising any red flags with authorities.
The suspect in the mass theater shooting availed himself of an unregulated online marketplace that allows consumers to acquire some of the tools of modern warfare as if they were pieces of a new wardrobe. The Internet is awash in sites ranging from BulkAmmo.com, which this weekend listed a sale on a thousand rifle rounds for $335, to eBay, where bidding on one armored special forces helmet has risen to $799.
A federal law enforcement source told CBS News that Holmes spent $15,000 fortifying his arsenal online. Authorities found a shipping label from BulkAmmo.com in a dumpster near Holmes' apartment, the source said. EBay was the vendor Holmes used to purchase some body armor, the source said...
The federal law enforcement source also told CBS News that authorities obtained a video of Holmes picking up approximately 160 pounds of ammunition from a FedEx store...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57478749/james-holmes-built-up-aurora-arsenal-of-bullets-ballistic-gear-through-unregulated-online-market/
He may have bought some things in stores, but there is video showing him picking them up after being shipped from the companies listed in the story, and UPS delivered them to his house.
So it's not illegal, and happening right now. Even Dorner made comment of how he could buy such things online and said it should be stopped.
It can be stopped by the ISP. They record all transactions made, for the same reasons as banks, and can stop this just like they have shut down copyright pirates, so it's possible and anything that can be done must be.
Not only that, why would the NRA resist stopping it or making it illlegal if it's not possible to stop?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Its illegal to ship a gun straight to somebody's house.
There is only one exception, and its for an organization run by the federal government (CMP). I had an M1 shipped to my house last summer. It would be illegal for me to buy any other guns and have them shipped to me, unless I had some kind of FFL.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,282 posts)The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) took all the information on your notarized application and used it to run the NICS background check on you.
Besides, it's almost like having a "waiting period", it takes a while to get the thing, then you have to dismantle it and degrease it before even thinking about shooting.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, you can buy ammo and other hardware online without shipping to an FFL. But not the guns.
formercia
(18,479 posts)does a background check on the purchaser and usually charges a fee for the transaction.
I have done this twice via the Internet. It's the same procedure as going to a gun shop.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Done this also
babylonsister
(170,960 posts)how thorough is it, and do you think every dealer does a check? Why this stipulation in the potential new bill?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)only as good as the information loaded from the state. I have also gone through my CCW check and that was completed with local law sheriff and the feds. I think part of the new compromise is I would not have to undergo another background check if I showed my CCL permit.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)is required to perform the NICS check in the store or at a gun show. Federal law already.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you want to make those checks stronger, we need to change the reporting requirement for things like mental health disqualifications from the states to NICS, from a carrot to a stick. Currently the reporting is incentivized, and there is no penalty for a state failing to pass those records on.
That is how Cho, at Virginia Tech wasn't disqualified from buying a gun. The state didn't report his issues to NICS, so the sale wasn't flagged and halted. (And 32 people died)
The only thing in that bill of any interest is moving private transfers to an FFL so that NICS check can be performed. That's all.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)They're also required to comply with state laws. Some states have their own background check system, or waiting periods, or ballistic "fingerprinting", or registration, or whatever.
The federal bill I think you're referring to would make all transfers go through a dealer for a background check, including private citizen to private citizen.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Mika
(17,751 posts)Like Sandy Hook.
Leslie Valley
(310 posts)Everything he did was against the law already.
Why weren't these laws being enforced?
elleng
(130,126 posts)'an unregistered gun purchased through the Internet. . .
the gun's serial number was scratched off.
It's illegal in California to buy a gun without a background check and purchasers are supposed to register their firearms. Defacing a gun's serial number is a federal offense.'
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)Just because people break the law doesn't mean the laws aren't enforced. There are prisons full of people to prove it.
booley
(3,855 posts)if he was able to do this relatively easily then the law is insufficient.
CincyDem
(6,281 posts)I know there is still much to learn here and yet this revelation makes this even more painful. It seems to imply there was advance planning and work done in advance by this young man to take his own life. Instead of a moment of dispair or anger at the world, his commitment to the task took time and planning.
I really dislike his dad's politics but nobody deserves this. My prayer for his father is that this pain opens his heart to a more diverse view of the world.
Time will tell.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)new laws are going to help this?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Example are sites selling copyrighted material. This would work since the variables are easily controlled, at least from commercial vendors. From email to email, etc., no.
But if Rick's son had to face a gun dealer in person with background checks as some states have instituted, asking the family members about their mental state it most likely would have alerted his father that something was going on.
The idea that this should be kept private is wrong. Guns used responsibly or not used responsibily quickly becomes the community's business. The only other path is to do nothing, which is wrong.
Reducing the total number of guns available, even if not getting all out of the hands of unstable persons, or kept in secret, will prevent tragedy. The possible inconvenience is irrelevant.
There is a need to reflect and consider what one plans to do with a weapon, and getting others involved, will save lives. Guns are unlike any other product for consumption, and should not be treated in the same way.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just higher tech and saving trees.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)We don't know exactly who provided the gun to the deceased, but whoever did broke at least existing state law and possibly federal law.
But if Rick's son had to face a gun dealer in person with background checks as some states have instituted, asking the family members about their mental state it most likely would have alerted his father that something was going on.
California law already requires those things.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Whoever sold the gun is already breaking multiple laws. What makes you think if we passed one more law, he would suddenly follow it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)WinniSkipper
(363 posts)Should be pretty easy.
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)I think we should wait for verification of this claim. I basically don't buy it for a second.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This sale was, per the article, not from an actual dealer. This was a black market transfer from stem to stern. What the hell is an ISP going to do, block every site that contains the word 'gun' and anything related to it?
That's like banning all cars, because somewhere out there, a black market transfer is going on where someone is illegally selling guns out of the trunk of a car.
If I were to speculate on something useful... the Post Office could x-ray all packages and if any guns are spotted, and they are not addressed to a valid FFL, they are confiscated. That could maybe help.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)If the bought the gun with the number already removed, then he broke the law, as did the person selling him the gun.
Of course, it is within the realm of possibility that he removed the serial numbers himself after buying it in compliance with California's laws. It would seem to be unlikely, but it is within the realm of possibility.
But please understand, this was not like ordering books.
I can't go onto Smith & Wesson's website and have a rifle or handgun delivered to my house after a few minutes of online shopping.
If the guy bought it online, that probably means he read an on-line classified ad. If the cops can get into his email, they can probably figure out who he was talking to. The person he bought it from should be arrested and imprisoned for his crimes.
FYI, California is one of the states with background checks required for all handgun transfers. It didn't work because he found a criminal that wanted to sell a gun.
Of course, assuming Warren's son kept his nose clean, he could have simply bought a gun legally.
Dunno. Maybe he was in a hurry to stop exercising his right to life and didn't want to wait 14 days for a legal gun.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)If it was illegal to sell guns on the internet, maybe Matthew would not have seen the ad for it and bought. It would be very risky to put gun ads on the internet if they were illegal. I imagine it would be easy for law enforcement to find such ads through targeted software. However, the NRA and gun nuts have stripped the ATF of money to do any real enforcement. So this "they should just enforce existing law" line is disingenuous.
What is not clear from the article is how Rick Warren knew his son bought the gun "from the internet." I had assumed Rick Warren did not know his son owned a gun.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)but leaving that aside, what is wrong with buying a gun on the internet so long as it goes through a licensed dealer and a background check it done?
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)If you're going to allow internet sales, we'll need a lot more resources for law enforcement to follow up on those sales and make sure they are going through licensed dealers with background checks. But we can't even get enough money for school lunches. The internet allows criminal/insane buyers to easily find unscrupulous sellers who will mail stuff anonymously anywhere. Like I said, it is easy enough to find the ad and block it; it is really hard to confirm all those sales complied with the law. With a storefront, ATF agents can just walk in the store and see what is going on. Some guy selling guns over the internet from some undisclosed location is a lot harder to inspect. It is much easier and cheaper to police gun sales with a blanket ban on internet gun sales. It's not like there are not enough gun stores around for law abiding people to get their guns. And you should not be able to create a stockpile of ammo and magazines through no-questions-asked internet purchases, like the Aurora shooter did, as freshwest describes.
But leaving that aside, again, it is really weird that Rick Warren would know how his son got the gun. Why do you think the story is bullshit? What do you think happened?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)But of course no law will stop ALL crime.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)of such guns.
Face to face transfers with friends and family remain the largest source.
(I love how everyone just believes Rick Asshole Motherfucker Warren too, that guy is a piece of work)
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and local FFL's. No loopholes here.
Hell, banning 'internet sales' entirely wouldn't have stopped that particular transaction. Serial number-less guns are practically radioactive. Happened anyway.
There are legit, background checked FFL sales on the internet, and there is a black market. (Just like there is a black market for various medications, and illicit drugs, etc)
It's a mirror of the regular street-level real world, except private transfers over the internet are already banned, unlike in meatspace.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)As freshwest noted upthread. That is currently legal and should not be. And deciphering the black market gun sale ads from the FFL sales on the internet is tough for a resource-starved ATF.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The ammo and tactical clothing, and couple pieces of armor, on the other hand, are not controlled/regulated. He probably got that stuff on the internet because it was cheaper, not likely for any other reason. You can buy that ammo at any sporting goods store, and if anything, all you have to do is show ID to prove your age. I don't see how the internet is different. Could pass a broad law that impacts both meatspace and online markets I suppose, but that is a different conversation.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)helmets and ammo too?
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)WinniSkipper
(363 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)55% of federal prisoners are held for drug law violations.
I'm sure drug dealers would love to advertise anonymously on the internet.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Just like more heroin will solve an addiction.....
You folks need to stop worshiping your guns and start to worry about human lives, come back to reality.
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)New laws won't prevent this any more than they stop child pornography. The answer lies in aggressive enforcement of the existing laws. When will we get a director of the the ATF?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Jan 13, 2013 by The Tytalan Way
The Melissa Harris-Perry show this morning tackled a variety of gun control issues, and in the process I was reminded of one in particular that hasn't come up lately -- to the point that people around me aren't even aware of it.
Back in 2006, Congress added a requirement for Senate confirmation of any new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives; and even since then, there has been no actual director of the ATF. Since that time it has been led by acting directors, including right now.
And so a government bureau with a budget of over a billion dollars continues to be led by an acting director due to stonewalling in the Senate by Republicans, at the behest of the NRA.
The agency is led by B. Todd Jones, Acting Director,[4] and Thomas E. Brandon, Deputy Director.[5] ATF has nearly 5,000 employees and an annual budget of $1.12 billion (2010).[2]
Republicans during the Bush regime. In particular, it is apparently the work of James Sensenbrenner, House rep. from Wisconsin. The results were predictable, as described in this ThinkProgress article from 2011.
Shortly after the 2006 law took effect, President Bush nominated U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan to head the ATF, but even a Republican presidents choice proved unacceptable to pro-gun lobbyists. The NRA, in particular, accused Sullivan of overly restrictive legal interpretations and overly zealous enforcement activities because, while Sullivan served as Acting Director of ATF, the agency revoked several gun dealers licenses to sell firearms. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) quickly took up the gun lobbys cause, placing a hold on Sullivans nomination until he agreed to comply with the NRAs demands. Sullivan was never confirmed.
The problem only got worse once President Obama took office. Obama did not nominate an ATF Director until Nov. 2010, in no small part because the administration had a tough time even finding a candidate interested in the ATF job because of likely gun-lobby resistance. When Obama finally did nominate Andrew Traver, a 23 year veteran of the ATF and the head of its Chicago office, the gun lobby did not disappoint. Within 24 hours of the Traver nomination, the NRA officially announced its opposition.
The NRA's press release objecting to Andrew Traver has been archived on the wayback machine. The NRA accuses Traver of lining up behind gun control "advocates" and "schemes".
The IACP report, generated with Traver's help, called on Congress to ban thousands of commonly owned firearms by misrepresenting them as assault weapons, as well as calling for bans on .50 caliber rifles and widely used types of ammunition. The report also suggests that Congress should regulate gun shows out of existence and should repeal the privacy protections of the Tiahrt Amendment -- all efforts strongly opposed by the NRA and its members.
Interesting, this; after all, a renewed assault weapons ban has come up in discussions now and it's going to come up in Congress, at least. And repealing the Tiahrt amendment is on the list of proposals put out by MAIG, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Tiahrt is the author of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit.[5] Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, believe that having further access to the ATF database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.[6] Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).[7] Conversely, the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, although it allows municipal police departments limited access to ATF trace data in any criminal investigation.
Besides protecting against civil suits, it hampers actual criminal investigation as well. But since it hides data about guns and gun violence, the NRA (and supposedly its membership) is for it. And Republicans in the House and Senate engineered this 'solution,' which depends on the broken system in the Senate that allows for nearly unlimited Senate obstructionism on the part of the GOP.
This has been the state of affairs since 2006, when Sensenbrenner slipped a provision into the PATRIOT Act re-authorization. Perhaps things have changed enough since then, though. The influence and approval of the NRA is on the wane, and ideas like banning assault weapons and repealing the Tiahrt amendment are now back 'on the table,' in spite of NRA protests. It may be time for a new director to be nominated for the ATF as well. Or at least, it seems time to remind the people of what Republicans did for the NRA to make the ATF as toothless as possible against curbing gun violence. And Democrats in the Senate are poised to make changes, to make it more functional; this can be added to the list of reasons why.
Many things came together to make this possible. Odd little bits of legislation, slipped into larger bills. Republican dominance during the Bush regime. The broken Senate. And most of all, the NRA running the show.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/gun-control-proposal-from-biden-needs-long-overdue-atf-leadership-to-succeed/2013/01/13/f78a4ffc-5dcc-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/13/1178634/-On-the-ATF-Director-or-the-conspicuous-lack-of-same
The Daily Kos allows printing articles in their entirety.
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)I think this is at least as critical as any new legislation in controlling illegal distribution of firearms!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Doesn't help in this case though. This wasn't even a grey market transfer. It's fully black market under the table shit.
jpak
(41,741 posts)Ya think?
valerief
(53,235 posts)more guns cures *everything* according to the gungeoneers.
lanlady
(7,133 posts)He seems to be using his son's suicide to draw attention and publicity to himself, to regain some relevance. What an asshole.