HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Rick Warren: Son Used Unr...

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:55 PM

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

64 replies, 6736 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rick Warren: Son Used Unregistered Gun in Suicide. (Original post)
elleng Apr 2013 OP
Mika Apr 2013 #1
babylonsister Apr 2013 #3
Mika Apr 2013 #7
babylonsister Apr 2013 #8
Mika Apr 2013 #15
Jenoch Apr 2013 #9
babylonsister Apr 2013 #11
Jenoch Apr 2013 #13
babylonsister Apr 2013 #26
freshwest Apr 2013 #28
Travis_0004 Apr 2013 #30
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2013 #55
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #44
formercia Apr 2013 #16
Duckhunter935 Apr 2013 #20
babylonsister Apr 2013 #27
Duckhunter935 Apr 2013 #36
Duckhunter935 Apr 2013 #37
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #45
krispos42 Apr 2013 #61
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #42
Ken Burch Apr 2013 #10
Mika Apr 2013 #17
Leslie Valley Apr 2013 #2
elleng Apr 2013 #5
Renew Deal Apr 2013 #52
booley Apr 2013 #58
CincyDem Apr 2013 #4
Duckhunter935 Apr 2013 #6
freshwest Apr 2013 #12
Duckhunter935 Apr 2013 #22
freshwest Apr 2013 #23
slackmaster Apr 2013 #25
Travis_0004 Apr 2013 #31
freshwest Apr 2013 #33
WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #59
naaman fletcher Apr 2013 #38
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #46
krispos42 Apr 2013 #62
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #19
freshwest Apr 2013 #24
naaman fletcher Apr 2013 #39
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #40
slackmaster Apr 2013 #41
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #43
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #47
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #49
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #50
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #51
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #53
WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #60
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #63
WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #64
slackmaster Apr 2013 #56
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #57
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #29
bluedigger Apr 2013 #14
freshwest Apr 2013 #32
bluedigger Apr 2013 #34
freshwest Apr 2013 #35
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #48
jpak Apr 2013 #18
valerief Apr 2013 #21
lanlady Apr 2013 #54

Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:01 PM

1. I smell an anti Obama conspiracy in the works.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mika (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:05 PM

3. Why? I think it's just tragic; buying guns off the internet is

on the chopping block now, and this will support that, I'm thinking. The Prez certainly isn't against this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:08 PM

7. Right. He's comin tuh git yer guns.

This fits right in w/the TP black helicopter type of conspiracies.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mika (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:10 PM

8. Yes, but an overwhelming majority

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:25 PM

15. I agree w/you.

I was simply commenting that this will bring on the black helicopter gungeoner conspiracies. Y'know, Rick Warren is "in" with the Kenyan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:12 PM

9. When most people think of

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:17 PM

11. What? I buy stuff off the internet all the time,

as do millions of people. We're all breaking the law? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:21 PM

13. I missed a word.

It has been illegal since 1968 to ship guns from seller to buyer. To be legal, the transactions must take place in person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:13 PM

26. I didn't know that. So

a lot of people have been breaking the law. I really hope buying guns anonymously becomes more difficult to do, really soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:18 PM

28. So that did not happen with Holmes? This story says otherwise:

James Holmes built up Aurora arsenal of bullets, ballistic gear through unregulated online market

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?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #28)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:25 PM

30. He bought ammo and equipment online, not guns.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:43 PM

55. That M1 was not from "some guy on the internets"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:12 AM

44. Perhaps you missed it, but a gun is not a helmet.

Yes, you can buy ammo and other hardware online without shipping to an FFL. But not the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:25 PM

16. The gun gets shipped to a Dealer who fills out the paperwork

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to formercia (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:41 PM

20. Yep

Done this also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to formercia (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:15 PM

27. About that background check...

how thorough is it, and do you think every dealer does a check? Why this stipulation in the potential new bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #27)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:58 PM

36. Standard NICS checck

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #27)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:59 PM

37. Every FFL

is required to perform the NICS check in the store or at a gun show. Federal law already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:15 AM

45. Because most people don't understand the laws already on the books.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:10 AM

61. Every federal dealer is required to run the purchaser through the federal NICS system.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:11 AM

42. That transaction was already illegal, per multiple laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mika (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:16 PM

10. Wouldn't it be MORE anti-Obama if he'd said it was a REGISTERED gun? n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:26 PM

17. Obviously, the removed serial # has Obama's hands all over it.

Like Sandy Hook.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:01 PM

2. So he illegally purchased an illegal firearm. Just how many more laws would have prevented this?

 

Everything he did was against the law already.

Why weren't these laws being enforced?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:06 PM

5. Are you suggesting doing so is easy?

'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.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:08 PM

52. Who said the laws aren't being enforced?

Just because people break the law doesn't mean the laws aren't enforced. There are prisons full of people to prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:45 PM

58. but how easy was it to do so

if he was able to do this relatively easily then the law is insufficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:05 PM

4. Premeditated?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:06 PM

6. broke many existing laws

new laws are going to help this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:20 PM

12. Restricting sales on the internet will prevent this, the ISPs can an do, shut things down.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:42 PM

22. same as a newpaper classified

just higher tech and saving trees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:46 PM

23. You didn't address anything I said, you're defecting again. I won't play that game. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:58 PM

25. I don't follow your reasoning freshwest. The trasnsfer was completely illegal under existing law.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:27 PM

31. I think its obvious that a guy selling a gun without a serial number doesn't care about the law

Whoever sold the gun is already breaking multiple laws. What makes you think if we passed one more law, he would suddenly follow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #31)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:36 PM

33. Those doing transactions online can be caught and prosecuted. Criminals are used to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:27 PM

59. Then they will catch the guy who sold it to him.

 

Should be pretty easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #31)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:35 PM

38. FWIW

 

I think we should wait for verification of this claim. I basically don't buy it for a second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:19 AM

46. I don't think you understand.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:22 AM

62. We don't know how he got the gun

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:33 PM

19. The NRA is blocking a ban on internet sales.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:47 PM

24. He won't answer, see my replles and his above. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:36 PM

39. I think the story is bullshit

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #39)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:53 AM

40. It's too easy to circumvent the law via internet sales; the ATF doesn't have enough resources.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:55 AM

41. Internet sales are a whole lot easier to track than face-to-face transactions at random locations

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:11 AM

43. It is hard to find buyers for those kind of sales without internet ads.

But of course no law will stop ALL crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:21 AM

47. Except of course the USDoJ already measures this and the internet is not a major source

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:45 AM

49. Then why do the gun mfrs have their panties in a bunch over the thought of banning internet sales?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #49)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:48 AM

50. Because the sales you are referring to take place not between private parties, but between dealers,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:05 PM

51. Holmes built his arsenal of bullets, ballistic gear through an unregulated online market.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:28 PM

53. I agree on the ATF. I wish to increase their budget and confirm director, etc.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #51)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:34 PM

60. So now you want to ban internet sales of

 

helmets and ammo too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinniSkipper (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:24 AM

63. So someone should be able to buy 10,000 bullets over the internet no questions asked? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #63)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:28 AM

64. Was that what I asked?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:39 PM

56. I wonder how drug dealers manage to make sales without posting ads on the Internet

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:49 PM

57. It's not easy. They get busted all the time; look at our jails.

55% of federal prisoners are held for drug law violations.

I'm sure drug dealers would love to advertise anonymously on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:18 PM

29. More gunz will solve this right?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:21 PM

14. I hope they are able to trace the seller and prosecute to the full extent of the law.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #14)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:34 PM

32. When we break the GOP - NRA stranglehold on nominations:

On the ATF Director, or the conspicuous lack of same

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, and Thomas E. Brandon, Deputy Director. ATF has nearly 5,000 employees and an annual budget of $1.12 billion (2010).

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 president’s 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 lobby’s cause, placing a hold on Sullivan’s nomination until he agreed to comply with the NRA’s 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. 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. Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #32)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:43 PM

34. Thanks for posting this!

I think this is at least as critical as any new legislation in controlling illegal distribution of firearms!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #34)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:48 PM

35. It'll make no difference there. This has turned into a Gungeon free for all. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:23 AM

48. A new director would be a good thing.

Doesn't help in this case though. This wasn't even a grey market transfer. It's fully black market under the table shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:33 PM

18. Maybe now we can stop this shit?

Ya think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:42 PM

21. If only he'd had a dozen more unregistered guns, this never would have happened, because

more guns cures *everything* according to the gungeoneers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:06 PM

54. I think we can ALL agree that Rick Warren's a weirdo

He seems to be using his son's suicide to draw attention and publicity to himself, to regain some relevance. What an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread