Posted on 09/03/2019 6:16:01 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Never going to happen. For untold decades they have revoked licenses and siezed the cars of DWI offenders only to have them buy, borrow or steal another.
In my area there are many offenders with DWIs in double digits and still driving. All the laws and rules are worthless in stopping this decades old scourge that takes over 10,000 lives a year.
Draw the parallels to obtaining a gun and they think total unattainable confiscation will fix the problem. After mandatory gun relenquishment in Australia they still have a gun problem on an island with no land borders for smuggling prohibited weapons. I doubt anyone will see a call to confiscate all cars.
1. How do they know he failed a background check?
2. Are they keeping a history of all background checks so they can go back and see if you failed, or if you had one, if something happens?
That guy did some bad things, so we should all surrender our firearms.
Lol
Nuts.
>>One of the little curious things is that this property he bought and lived on (for 18 months) didn’t really have streets that were identified<<
It’s probably what is referred to as an “illegal subdivision”. Not sure about other states but it’s a common problem in Texas. Someone buys a chunk of land, divides it up themselves and makes their own roads, then never registers it with the county.
Yeah, that’s how the Muslim couple in San Bernardino got their weapons they used, some friend of his who was a citizen bought them for him. That guy was sent to jail if I remember right.
>>You might notice one other odd feature....no electricity to his place (at least claimed by one neighbor). Who would go and live in a place like that....for 18 months?<<
When you buy “unimproved land”, at least in Texas, you have to install your own pole and then the electric company comes and hooks you up. He just probably never paid to do all of that.
The problem is when LE knows about people like this and does NOTHING.
They keep telling us that we need more gun control and better laws, but what we have now should be working but it isn’t because they have to follow and enforce the law for it to be effective.
I can understand that cost/pole business. But we aren’t talking 8 miles across some Montana wilderness. To go without electricity for 18 months? Either it wasn’t that important, or he was some nutcase.
It is unclear how the gunman, identified Sunday as 36-year-old
Seth Aaron Ator, obtained the AR-style rifle he used
**************
That is going to be an interesting answer if they do find out. The Serial #
on the weapon used should provide some history on the weapon. Was it stolen,
loaned to him, purchased from another person, etc? Somewhere along the
line the serial # will reveal some info.
A law-abiding citizen who fails a background check will remain unarmed. A criminal who fails a background check won’t care and will be armed if he wants to be.
My first thought was "When did he convert to Islam?" That would be covered up as well.
maybe the Bureau told their field office and police to back off as this was a national security matter and above their pay grade.
Brennen and Roberts raise their champagne glasses, chuckling.
Its Kenneth. I have the Frequency!! What do I do with it?
Headline you will never see:
Legal Authorities Admit Odessa Shooter Was A Criminal Who Had No Regard For The Law
No law ever prevented a crime. They are solely for setting punishment.
I remember back in 1968 when the Dems called for a ban on “Saturday Night Specials” and 5-shot bolt action army surplus rifles “to prevent crime”.
They got the ban on foreign made SNS and 5-shot military rifles (Police rifles off the same assembly line were A-OK as they were not military issued).
Then they started demanding other new gun laws to prevent crime which did not go down.
“Yeah, that’s how the Muslim couple in San Bernardino got their weapons they used, some friend of his who was a citizen bought them for him. That guy was sent to jail if I remember right.” [Tejas Rob, post 25]
Straw purchase is also how one of the perps in the Columbine High School incident obtained a shotgun: a woman who had reached the federally mandated legal-purchase age of 18 bought it and gave it to him. News coverage pretty much ignored her role and I can no longer recall if she was prosecuted.
He went to the wrong side of the tracks, and bought a gun from a portable dealer, who sold out the back of his car. Which is why further gun restrictions are a waste.
Maybe he made the gun. It’s not rocket science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.