Police: Ex-Student Sold Gun in Pa. School Shooting

[onehandle]

Source: ABC News

Philadelphia police say a 17-year-old who shot two classmates got the gun only moments before from an ex-student who bypassed metal detectors as a "guest."

Officials say video footage shows the former student, 18-year-old Donte Walker, handing off the gun and exchanging money with an unidentified male. They say the gun then was passed to Raisheem Rochwell, who feared he was going to be targeted in an after-school assault.

Rochwell is charged with shooting two students in the arm Friday in the Delaware Valley Charter High School gymnasium. Police believe the victims were struck by the same bullet. Both have been treated and released.

Rochwell is being held on aggravated assault and other charges. His lawyer says he will be vindicated.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawyer-boy-jailed-philly-shooting-blame-21593332

---

The Path Of Guns Used In Crimes Begin With A Legal Gun Owner.

The seller may have possessed the gun illegally, but out there somewhere, this all started with a Legal Gun Owner.

[dlwickham]

1. so you're blaming the legal gun owner

for a crime that someone who had the gun illegally committed?

so if someone steals your car and runs someone over, you're to blame?

[valerief]

4. Where does it say the gun was stolen???? Typical gungeoneer thinking. nt

[dlwickham]

57. where did I say the gun was stolen

all I said was that someone had the gun illegally

[valerief]

62. Then what does this analogy mean?????

so if someone steals your car and runs someone over, you're to blame?

[onehandle]

5. No. That was just an aside.

But the path of all guns should be HIGHLY REGULATED, REGISTERED, AND TRACKABLE.

Like, for instance, a CAR.

[dlwickham]

56. which constitutional amendment talks about car ownership

[onehandle]

58. There's only one amendment misinterpreted for the sake of fetishism.

The fetishists conveniently overlooking that pesky word 'regulated.'

[NutmegYankee]

60. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

No doubt you just overlook that on a daily basis.

[Baalzamon]

61. Don't bother.

We all know what well-regulated meant at the time the 2nd was written. And we all know that explaining goes in one ear and out the other.

I have never, ever, seen a person that was for gun control ever acknowledge that even when having it explained to them. They don't care.

It is almost like a Who's On First joke at this point:

But well regulated.

At the time that meant well armed and prepared.

But well regulated.

At the time that meant well armed and well prepared.

But well regulated.

[dlwickham]

77. they know what it means

they just choose to overlook it

[dlwickham]

76. regulated refers to "militia" not guns

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

how about that pesky word "infringed" as in the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

[Helen Highwater]

64. Here is the biggest objection and obstacle to registration:

A very high percentage of decent law-abiding gun owners won't do it out of principle, and
a virtually unanimous percentage of dirtbag criminal gun owners won't do it out of self preservation.

Result: nothing useful.

[Baalzamon]

70. I don't agree with that line of reasoning.

If you don't register, then you become a criminal. If you are caught, you go to jail. It's a simple as that. And I happen to not be completely against the idea of registration, I just have a problem with then having the government deciding to make some of those guns illegal to own and then demanding them back (or the magazines as those are expensive as well).

So that line of reasoning just allows the gun control side to say "well I guess you aren't much of a law-abiding gun owner after all". And I agree there.

However, when they start talking about not being so law-abiding if one doesn't turn in guns that have become illegal over night, that is where I disagree with them. I have an analogy for that one. If the chimp, while he was in office, had congress pass a law that said everyone had to get on their knees on Mondays and say a prayer to him, would you obey it? The obvious answer to that is no freaking way! But that would make you a criminal, yes? Yeah, technically, but it's an obvious illegal law so it should not be obeyed.

That's the way I feel about any registration that is combined with then making guns that are registered illegal and asking to turn those guns in. You paid for those guns with your money in a legal manner, they are your property, so ignoring that law is ok because it is obviously unconstitutional; just as would be being forced to praise the chimp.

[Helen Highwater]

78. I have no problem ignoring an unfair, unreasonable, unconstitutional ex post facto law

that does nothing but abrogate my rights. Plenty of people broke laws in the struggle for civil rights and now you won't find very many who think it was a bad thing.

To me there will always be an important distinction between a de jure "criminal" and a de facto one. A bad law is worse than none at all, n'est ce pas?

[Orrex]

8. If a car is stolen, it can be traced back to its owner pretty easily

Thanks to the nationwide registry.

Just like with guns, right?



Right?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Actually you can, ATF form 4473.

It's just not a federal database, per the 1986 law that prohibits the formation of one.

[Orrex]

12. If the gun is registered at all, of course.

Not a lot of unregistered vehicles on the road, in contrast.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Unless it is smuggled into the country

it will have an initial, legal point of sale. With a background check. (Or NICS check, specifically) And a paper trail.

From there, the police can work out 'who did you sell it to', and follow the chain of ownership. Breaks in ownership, like theft, or intentional disposal to grey/black markets are where the problem lies. Proving whether it was intentional or theft can be problematic however.

Recall that we ALWAYS hear what store sold a gun used in XYZ national news story crime. Always. And sometimes, like the DC sniper case, even though the seller was found, the transfer was not legal, and they were shut down for it. And there was some jail time, IIRC.

[Orrex]

19. So if I buy a gun at a gun show, that's logged in a permanent and traceable fashion?

Interesting.

[Ranchemp.]

20. If you buy from an FFL dealer,

then yes, but if you buy from a private citizen, then no record of sale exists, that's why I personally support Universal Background checks for any and all firearms transaction.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. A new gun, yes.

If its used, then depends on the state, and the nature of the seller.

Re-sale at a gun show is, in most states, no different than buying it from the classified section of the paper, or from a friend, etc.
But if the seller is a dealer, selling used, or new, there is certainly a paper trail.


(Comparison to autos is problematic because we only license and register vehicles for use on public roads. I have two on my property that are not currently registered to me, all legal.)

[Duckhunter935]

29. As far as I know

Any firearm sold by an FFL at a gun show new or used requires background check.

Sounds like this "legal" firearm owner broke federal law by knowingly selling to a prohibited person (too young for a pistol) and I hope he is charged and goes to jail and pays a serious fine.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Did that actually come out?

Was the initial jump to unlawful recipient made knowingly, or unknowingly? (Or theft?)

[Duckhunter935]

39. Unknown

You may be right and I should not have jumped to that conclusion if the 18YO was a legal owner.

Thanks

[Loudly]

22. And why is a database prohibited?

Because the People require anonymity for their guns in order to more effectively engage in armed rebellion against the government?

As though the Civil War never happened.

As though the Covenant of Appomattox is no longer a social compact.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Two states have used registries for confiscation purposes.

The counter-argument seems alarmist, perhaps, but it is real, and has some supporting evidence.

[Orrex]

28. Approximately how many guns have been confiscated in this fashion?

And were they confiscated legitmately (i.e., from convicted felons) or from legal gun owners?


Not being snarky--just curious.

[Ranchemp.]

30. From legal gun owners who had previously registered them

per NYC and CA law.
After registration in CA, then those firearms were deemed illegal and letters were sent out by AG Bill Lockyer demanding that those firearms be turned in to LE.

[Duckhunter935]

31. California got caught

and then backtracked

"Once the 90-day window of opportunity for turning in such assault weapons concludes, we will send each sheriff and police chief a listing of the affected individuals [who own banned firearms]." - California Department of Justice Information Bulletin, June 11, 1999

So read the ominous words printed in a bulletin addressed to law enforcement officials in California.

The California Department of Justice issued the notice in June to explain how more than 1,500 individuals in the state were in possession of illegal firearms-- all of which were subject to forfeiture without compensation.

The document entitled "RELINQUISHMENT OF ASSAULT WEAPONS," along with two other equally ominous documents, were inadvertently leaked to the public sending shock waves through the gun rights community in California.

http://gunowners.org/nws9911.htm

[Loudly]

42. Why do you characterize it as "ominous?"

This could be the start of a New Enlightenment!

Call it hopeful. Call it a good start.

[Ranchemp.]

43. So you support confiscation?

[Loudly]

45. Phased. Coupled with a shutdown of new product.

How else do we progress toward a gun-free society?

[Ranchemp.]

46. You really believe that we'll be a gun free society?

Let me guess though, you'll support confiscation from lawful gun owners, but not the police or military?

Another thing, how do you propose to disarm the criminals? How do you plan to stop the flow of firearms coming into the country from our northern and southern borders?
Can't even stop the flow of drugs or immigrants, what makes you think the govt could stop the flow of firearms.
All you would do is create a HUGE blackmarket for firearms, which org. gangs would gladly fill.

[Loudly]

47. Pretend it's 1950

and ask me what I believe about the future of racial equality in the USA.

[Ranchemp.]

48. Read the rest of my edited post.

And this ain't 1950.
Reality is that this country will never be disarmed and any pol. party that attempts it will be shown the door toot sweet.

[Loudly]

50. Obviously, I disagree.

Medgar Evers may have died in the struggle, but the Klan lost the war.

[Duckhunter935]

51. You do realize

Anybody with machine tools can make weapons right. Very soon better printers will just print them. The tech is out there and they will be made. I would rather have a track able and legal path for weapons.

[Loudly]

52. If we can get to the point that manufacturing is driven underground

that will be a significant milestone of success.

[Helen Highwater]

59. Like driving drug manufacturing and distribution underground stopped its use

Got it.

[Ranchemp.]

65. Yeah right, because drugs are so hard to get, oh wait.

And again, alcohol was difficult to obtain during prohibition, right? Oh, wait.

[Loudly]

66. Kiddie porn is available too.

But we deal with it harshly.

[Ranchemp.]

67. And it still can't be stamped out, can it?

And before you answer, bear in mind that I know much more about the trials and tribulations of trying to enforce the law.

[Loudly]

71. We are such a long way from being able to stamp it out.

Right now, we are still dealing with forces like you who are endorsing it.

Hang your fucking head in fucking shame.

[Ranchemp.]

72. I'm endorsing child porn?

You better clarify your statement!!!!!!

[Loudly]

73. No, I would just ridicule you for nonchalance in the death of children.

Is that better or worse than accusing you of partaking in their sexual exploitation?

[Ranchemp.]

74. You're really losing it if you think that gun ownership is akin

to the sexual exploitation of children.
That really is sick.

At no time did I EVER express nonchalance in the death of children and I dare you to link to one post where I did.

[Loudly]

75. You don't need to be an advocate of it.

You can just be an advocate of the means to conveniently KILL them placing you in the debate as an adverse party!

Ask yourself for what you are advocating and for what purpose.

Ask yourself for whom you are advocating.

Don't take it too personally.

Just realize that your desire to have guns has nothing to do with the safety of those you think it does.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Not from felons. From normal gun owners.

The Cali registration snafu was a registry deadline extension. There was just too damn many to register, so, the authorities over the registry extended the deadline, and a bunch more guns were registered.

A lawsuit was filed, and the courts found there was no legal authority to extend the deadline. So every gun registered after that point had to be rendered non-functional, destroyed, surrendered to police, or exported out of state. (Most were, I'm sure, exported to other states.)

The other issue is still unfolding, waiting to see how it shakes out fully, or perhaps someone else can explain it better.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Is there some secret addendum to R. E. Lee's surrender we are unaware of?

If so, where might we find it?

[Loudly]

41. Similar answer to that given in reference to The Holocaust.

Never again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. So far, you're the only person that has espoused this idea

[Loudly]

69. And it's a good issue with which to challenge candidates!

Is there a Constitutional right of armed rebellion vested in the People as reflected in the Second Amendment?

Was that right extinguished (or at least rendered obsolete) by the sincere, impassioned but incorrect decision of the Southern States to secede from the Union and engage in armed resistance against the United States?

If armed rebellion is what the Second Amendment is intended to preserve, no matter how foolish or wrong headed the cause, are there any practical ways of reducing the use of guns and ammunition by persons who have not yet committed fatal crimes?

[Doctor_J]

13. I'm blaming the FACT that anyone can get a gun in the US

on almost no notice, because the entire nation is flooded in guns, due mostly to the NRA

[billh58]

2. And that is exactly why

Second Amendment absolutists don't want registration, because the trail would lead back to the "legal" purchaser. Gun ownership without accountability or responsibility is a large part of the gun violence problem in this country.

[NutmegYankee]

7. Registration did in fact lead to confiscation in CA and NYC.

Many gun owners associate it with the eventual effort to deprive them of their right.

[billh58]

11. There was no widespread

confiscation of guns in general -- only those guns which were lawfully determined to be illegal. Illegal guns may be "confiscated" by law enforcement just like any other item of contraband. Legal gun owners would have absolutely nothing to fear from registration.

[NutmegYankee]

15. No, the guns were previously legal.

In CA, they were registered after a date was extended. Several years later, a new AG in the state fought the extension and won in court. Even though the owners had the registration certificate and had complied with the law at the time, they lost the guns.

In NYC, guns that no longer comply with the new law are being confiscated by the police.

The problem with "illegal" as you state it is that all of these firearms were legal and their owners had followed the laws. But now the law has changed and they are losing them. If states have proven they won't follow the principle of the "grandfather clause", why should any gun owner trust a politician who says he won't take them in the future? It appears it's simply a matter of making an existing guns design illegal.

It's not hard to see - It's the same plan as the right's attack on Abortion. Which is also a right.

[billh58]

21. I understand the concept, but

only very specific types of firearms were subject to being labeled as "illegal." The abortion analogy also applies in that not ALL abortions are "legal" and depend on the term of pregnancy, and whether or not they are performed by licensed medical practitioners.

ALL rights have constraints and restrictions which weigh the public good and public safety against an individual "right." I can not foresee ANY circumstance that would allow the government (at any level) to confiscate all civilian guns as claimed by Second Amendment absolutists. Certain lethal weapons are already deemed to be unfit for civilian use, and that list is subject to change from time-to-time.

Those who are itching to water the "tree of liberty" with the blood of Americans with their guns are wrong on many levels.

[NutmegYankee]

25. I don't have your faith.

I'm sure bolt action and lever action rifles would probably remain unchallenged, but handguns are certainly at risk. The problem with the gun control argument is it's mainly argued by people who don't own firearms, demonstrate a lot of contempt for those who do, and often just outright HATE those who own them. I'm not referring to you specifically, but some other posters on the board certainly fit that description. It's hard to place trust in someone who HATES you, even if you agree with some of their proposals.

That mistrust is a lot of the gun debate. Very emotional. Emotion drives the Extreme anti-control response of many owners. Just last week, a DUer posted an OP proposing a ban on Hate Speech. Now given its toxic nature on others, sometimes leading to violence and death, many countries have reasonably banned it, including much of Europe and Australia. The reaction of most DUers upon reading that OP? Not just No, but HELL NO! And so often goes the response from many people who enjoy marksmanship to proposals to curtail their ability to own guns. For the record, as a card carrying member of the ACLU, I'd also oppose a ban on hate speech.

As for the abortion debate, my focus is on the TRAP laws that have shuttered many clinics. Some of the proposals made on DU, such as requiring insurance (which no company will offer), seem very much like those types of laws. Connecticut went so far as to have a hearing on it, wherein every company said they would never offer insurance for intentional misuse.

[billh58]

35. I agree with you

about the level of animosity, especially on DU, between gun advocacy proponents and gun control proponents. I also agree that there is a need for finding some middle ground in a more rational manner.

A little personal background: I served two combat tours in Vietnam, and have seen up close and personal what guns were designed to do, and do so very efficiently. When I returned (to Hawaii) I settled into a fairly normal life, married a Maui girl, and flew air taxi for a living. In 1989 a very good friend of mine was killed by a drunk with an M14 during a party at the beach (Plenty Kiawe on Maui). After that, I became a very vocal gun control advocate.

I admit to being one of the most hostile gun control advocates on DU, and up until recently felt very secure in my self-righteousness. Due to some recent self-reflection, and some very pointed "back atcha" remarks in various threads, I have come to understand that hatred only begets hatred, and that I am basically fighting other Democrats who hold a different point-of-view. I am attempting to be more civil, but remain firm in my belief that the NRA and the very vocal minority of Second Amendment absolutists that they keep agitated are a menace to our society.

I firmly believe that the justice system in this country, while flawed, by-and-large works and will never allow for the total confiscation of all civilian weapons. I believe that registration and tracking, thorough background checks, and education are the key to reducing gun violence in this country. I believe that my state, Hawaii, has enacted fair and rational gun legislation which works well and would be a good national model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Hawaii

[Ranchemp.]

36. Great post.

You're correct, both sides need to find common ground to move legislation forward on sensible gun laws.
There are a few fanatics here on DU, on both sides of the issue, we need to ignore them and come together with civil debate/discussion and your post is a damned good start.
Good job!!!!!

[NutmegYankee]

38. And I greatly appreciate your civility.

I lost my temper a few times in the past and have made great strides to be more polite. I've also come to understand as you so aptly said that "I am basically fighting other Democrats who hold a different point-of-view."

The laws of the state I live in are almost the same, except we do not have a general registry and now nearly all semi-auto center-fire rifles are banned from sale. By making it one feature for the assault weapon ban, the AR and FAL rifles are no longer legal for sale. Those existing in civilian hands had to be registered. I feel fairly safe that my state would never attempt to take those guns.

On the other hand, the concern for a registry in my mind is heightened by the actions of NYC. Owners of rifles for decades received notices (based on the registry) that their guns were no longer legal and had to be turned in. Basically the law banned any rifle capable of taking a magazine over 5 rounds. Some of the guns identified were bolt action .22LR rifles, such as the Marlin 25N. This is an out of production antique, but is designed like most bolt action hunting rifles to take a small magazine from the bottom, usually 5 rounds. The 25N came with a 7 round mag typically, but there were also 5 round mags sold. However, there are also magazines on the market for 10 or 25 rounds. So the gun was banned by NYC. But that's typical of nearly all bolt action rifles.

If the justice system will allow a city to take a simple .22LR bolt action hunting gun from it's legal owner, I seriously have doubts there is any reasonable limit. The problem is that anyone who attempts to call out such a blatant unconstitutional act (grandfather clause alone) is labeled an extremist. An accusation that is rather insulting given the NYPD's complete disregard for constitutional rights on a daily basis, especially their horrid use of stop and frisk. I'd be able to get behind registration only if I could be assured that actions like that in NYC wouldn't occur. And the case law is just really weak at this point.

[billh58]

40. On the surface, this sounds like a law/decision

that a good attorney could address with a fair assumption of overturning or nullifying, but I'm only guessing. I'm torn between a national standard (to eliminate disparities such as this), and leaving legislation up to the various States with a possible NIMBY outcome.

In either scenario, not everyone will agree to a single solution, as Democracy seldom delivers remedies to everyone's satisfaction. I believe that compromise is the best that we can hope for as we strive for mostly fairness, with occasional patches of clouds.

[Helen Highwater]

63. I also served 2 tours in Nam but I didn't walk around with a gun, I dropped bombs

from high altitudes which might explain how I came to the exactly opposite position from yours.
I asked a question here a month or so ago, one of my very first posts after coming here by invitation from my brother in law who I probably shouldn't identify right now...he knows I am in a 32 year same sex relationship and said this forum was gay friendly...as it seems mostly to be...but after I asked this question I was greeted by several pretty snide and snarky retorts that didn't actually offer any rational answer to my initial query. I almost gave up but thought I'd give it a little more slack and hang around for a while. Here is my copied & pasted original question:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would any rational person, even one who has lost a loved one to senseless violence, want to reduce the ability of millions and millions of decent law-abiding citizens to defend their families and themselves against a tiny number of loons bent on committing mayhem? How does making it more difficult for me to protect my family help to stop thugs and criminals, who happen to be among the most ardent "gun control" supporters in the country?

It's no mystery why thugs and criminals are staunchly for "gun control", they would LOVE
it if decent people were denied access to defensive guns...what is not easy to figure out is why any supposedly intelligent person regardless of political party or ideology would support efforts to reduce the right to self-defense that is probably the most salient and basic human right of all. Can someone who wants to limit my 2nd Amendment rights please answer this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't include a little bit of history in that post, which was that I and my then new partner were coming out of a bar in Tampa (we were both attached to McDill AFB) when 4 guys with clubs or bats started to come after us screaming obscene insults - I was carrying my military issued sidearm (it wasn't strictly legal but back then it wasn't exactly ILlegal either) and I opened up my jacket so they could see it...the 4 thugs turned around and ran off. I have not much reason to believe they wouldn't have beaten us maybe to death if I hadn't had my weapon.

[Baalzamon]

44. Are you aware of what you are saying?

Let me see if I understand you correctly (so if I have you wrong, please say so):

You are ok with having firearms registered, then having some of those registered guns deemed illegal, then having them confiscated? You do realize that people spent thousands of dollars of their hard earned money to legally buy those "assault weapons" in the first place right? And you want to steal them (it is stealing if you do not compensate them in full for their personal property).

Even in Australia, the motherland of draconian gun control, they paid gun owners in FULL for their guns. If a gun was purchased for $1,500, that man received $1,500. So congratulations, your point-of-view of just taking expensive property and not paying for it is a place even Australia was smart enough not to go; for obvious reasons.

The only worse view I have seen on this site from the gun control crowd is the person who said something about executing gun owners who keep their property instead of turning it in for nothing.

The last thing I would like to point out to you is this:

Just because restrictions are in place on something (2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, whatever) does not mean that those restrictions justify other restrictions. In other words, restriction A, B, C do not justify restriction D through Z. So instead of using the tired "the 2nd Amendment isn't free from restrictions", just come out and say what you mean: "I realize there are restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, but I will never be satisfied until semi-automatic rifles are banned".

[billh58]

49. Welcome back! n/t

[mimi85]

53. Where did you find

the info that assault weapons are bought by "hard earned money?" Making it sound like these owners are all salt-of-the-earth hard working folk. I imagine LOTS of guns are bought by people with plenty of dinero.

[Baalzamon]

55. Not relevant to the discussion.

It doesn't matter how law abiding gun owners have extra money for guns, as long as everything is legal. Rich, poor, whatever.

What is relevant is how disgusting it is to suggest that it is ok to declare that property illegal and then demand it turned in and just say "well you are sol if you have lost thousands of dollars worth of your property.

Like I said, even Australia knew better than to try that. They figured demand people just hand over expensive property would result in bloodshed, so they paid the gun owners what the gun owners paid.

The fact that some extremists even entertain the thought of just stealing expensive property is sickening. I imagine they realize it wouldn't happen at a federal level, but just throw it out there out of spite and to get a reaction. No sane person can honestly believe that congress would pass something like that.

[Ranchemp.]

18. Those firearms were legal until NYC and CA decided to make them illegal

and demanded they be handed over, that's confiscation and that's what most firearms owner fear from registration, rightly or wrongly, but it has happened.

[billh58]

26. Many things have been "legal"

until they were legislated to be illegal: segregation, marijuana, cocaine, automatic fire weapons, and the list goes on. I understand that civilian guns are a special category of potentially harmful items, and need to be regulated with care.

I believe that only a minority of gun owners "fear" confiscation of all guns in this country, and that the NRA has successfully sold that far-fetched possibility through the clever use of propaganda and half-truths.

Your mileage may vary...

[Ranchemp.]

27. Don't get me wrong,

in no way do I fear mass confiscation, that's RW bullshit perpetrated by the NRA, it would be impossible to legislate guns into non existence and any attempt by the govt to confiscate firearms would be met with abject failure.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Auto weapons aren't illegal.

In fact, they make the strongest case I use in favor of a registry. The registry was closed, in a dipshit vote but otherwise, it serves as prima facie evidence that a registry need not lead to confiscation.

And the weapons in that registry are simply not used for crimes. I think two, over the history of the registry, ever used in the commission of a crime. That's astounding.

The Registry makes possession contingent on:

1. Full background check, including fingerprints.
2. Fee. 200$ tax stamp.
3. Registration
4. BATFE inspection. (They can show up to make sure you still have it)

That's a ridiculously effective tool.

You just can't buy any new ones made after 1986, because the registry was closed. It can be re-opened.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Except that they CAN do that now with the 4473.

It's just a little bit of paperwork at the state level.

[billh58]

14. True that, but

there is no mandatory paper trail after the first purchase, or even a requirement to report the gun stolen. If the gun was registered (even in a state database like in Hawaii) and there were mandatory transfer of registration and/or theft reports, straw sales and transfers would be much easier to determine.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. True, and I do support registration for that reason.

My particular concern is that jump from legal markets, to grey/black market sources. Straw purchases are a tough nut to crack without registration, to show investigators, 'hey this guy loses a LOT of guns...'.

[valerief]

3. Another resonsible gun owner defending his community. Blech! nt

[underthematrix]

6. First, a "responsible" gunowner doesn't sell a gun to a kid

on school grounds while school is in session. Second, there's nothing to indicate the gun was registered to the seller. Third, who the hell lets anyone coming on to school grounds bypass the metal detectors because they are a "guest"?

[mimi85]

54. So they wait until school's over? nt