General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuns used by the bombers
What were they and how did they get them?
I haven't heard a thing about guns used by the bombers. They were in a shootout. Did they have pistols, rifles, automatic weapons? I'm surprised about the lack of any info on this. It would be interesting to know how and where they got them.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)as to what they were, that's for the trial to expose.
rightsideout
(978 posts)But in light that background checks were just killed this week in the senate it's a curiosity.
gateley
(62,683 posts)paying attention?
Amonester
(11,541 posts)So they went (or 'he' went) to which State's gun show?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)rightsideout
(978 posts)What were they?
And I just love how people on this forum like are so perfect and know everything and come down on others when they ask questions. Like you are soooo perfect in every way.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)We are so focused on the bombs, we almost forgot they had guns as well.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)have a license. According to some reports, they stole a "long gun" from the policeman they killed, so that is at least one.
Take MSM with a grain of salt. They talk a lot about "automatic fire." Unless they got an M-16 from the murdered officer, that is highly unlikely.
Bomb materiel was probably purchased out of Wayne LaPierre's car trunk, by now.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Gun shows in MA are heavily regulated, unlike those in other states. Any gun sale in MA is recorded with the state. To buy a gun you must present your license, and your license indicates what type of gun you are authorized to buy and own.
Any firearms that they had, they probably obtained illegally.
dballance
(5,756 posts)He was 26, so older than any must be 21 laws. Had no criminal background, was not on any watch lists. Had permanent resident status.
So what would have prevented him from buying a gun even with a background check at a dealer?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)because he had a previous domestic violence arrest. That also prevented him from being further promoted in boxing--ie. Olympics?
Not sure if this is true, but what I picked up.
So the younger one was prevented by must be 21 laws?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Apparently an arrest record (no conviction) of domestic abuse makes you ineligible in MA.
See question 12 on this MA firearms permit application
Town of Winthrop firearms licensing
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Wow--that is a really good law--that a domestic violence offense makes you ineligible.
(I imagine what might have made Tamerlan really pissed off is the boxing repercussions as a result of one domestic offense. He probably knew it was easy to get guns otherwise).
-----------
That should be the law in every state. I don't think it is. Here is a really good comprehensive recent NYT article I found when I looked it up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all
"...Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.
In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear arms must give ground to the need to protect a womans life.
In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the mere issuance of court orders.
(snip)
"A handful of states have enacted laws requiring that judges order the surrender of firearms when issuing even temporary protection orders. The strictest states, like California, Hawaii and Massachusetts, make it mandatory for essentially all domestic violence orders; others, like New York and North Carolina, set out certain circumstances when surrender is required. In a few other states, like Maryland and Wisconsin, surrender is mandatory only with a full injunction, granted after the opposing party has had the opportunity to participate in a court hearing. Several other states, like Connecticut and Florida, do not have surrender laws but do prohibit gun possession by certain people subject to protective orders."
(excellent article at link, recommended)
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Unfortunately it in no way ensures that a domestic partner will not be assaulted in any other manner.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)it results in fewer killings.
Not the whole answer to the problem of domestic violence by any means.