Boston bomber was a prohibited possessor.


PDA






Yo Mama
April 19, 2013, 03:28 PM
The one they killed last night, may he rot in hell, was convicted of domestic violence 4 years ago. Hmmmm.....prohibited possessor? Maybe some will see the light, enforce the laws on the books already and stop making new ones for legal citizens!

Mods, I didn't think this was against forum rules, if it is I appologize but had to get this off my chest.

If you enjoyed reading about "Boston bomber was a prohibited possessor." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Vector
April 19, 2013, 04:04 PM
Having nothing to do with this loser, I have a lot of concerns about DV's losing their Constitutional right for life.

Now I am not taking about recitivist law breakers, but in some cities or even states, just the mere accusation of DV causes you to lose your rights.
In some cases a "he said, she said" gets both arrested with the courts to settle the matter at a later date. In the mean time both people can wind up being without their firearms.
Heck all one needs to do is get a restraining order issued against them, and they lose their rights.

cor_man257
April 19, 2013, 04:07 PM
It is to easy for a woman to claim a man a domestic abuser and have his rights removed, when nothing has happened.

I do take domestic violence seriously, and am in no way saying true domestic abusers should retain their rights. They shouldn't. But lets separate the BS from the abusers.

OilyPablo
April 19, 2013, 04:08 PM
Not even sure why he had full Constitutional rights as a non-citizen. I guess he loved the country.

parker51
April 19, 2013, 04:12 PM
CNN claimed they were both U.S. Citizens.

Paladin7
April 19, 2013, 04:12 PM
What I'm unclear about is how that police officer was killed on the MIT campus...???

I feel terrible about his loss and the impact to his family, so don't take this the wrong way... but, aren't guns illegal on campus?

Btw...just a point of clarification... CNN is not a credible news agency, they are propagandists at best and their reporters, if you can call them that, are a bunch of idiots who do more repeating of talking points than credible news reporting. I don't believe anything they say.

Yo Mama
April 19, 2013, 04:14 PM
I'm not saying I agree with the DV laws either, but they are already on the books and not clearly this subhuman scum was not enforced. They don't need any more. That was my only point.

Vector
April 19, 2013, 04:19 PM
CNN claimed they were both U.S. Citizens.

I heard they were given political asylum or something. Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth.

Shadow 7D
April 19, 2013, 04:24 PM
Um, yeah, Chechen...spent time in Dagistan, dad is still over there 'somewhere in the russian federation'
(BTW, there are 3 BIG FLAGS in the above line)

parker51
April 19, 2013, 04:27 PM
What I'm unclear about is how that police officer was killed on the MIT campus...?.

CNN or one of the other non-news agencies claimed he was just sitting in his patrol car and was ambushed by the two suspects.


Btw...just a point of clarification... CNN is not a credible news agency, they are propagandists at best and their reporters, if you can call them that, are a bunch of idiots who do more repeating of talking points than credible news reporting. I don't believe anything they say.

I assume this was directed at my comment about CNN reporting that they were U.S. Citizens. Would you like to tell me which of the so called news agencies should be considered "credible"? Perhaps MSNBC? Even Fox gets it wrong at times. Bill O'Reilly was claiming last night that if Presiden Obama would have listened to him and included registration in the bill it would have passed. Ha!

OilyPablo
April 19, 2013, 04:29 PM
CNN says:

An official in the central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan told CNN that the brothers held Kyrgyz passports, which they had used to apply for green cards in the United States.

Many refugees from the Caucasus conflict have received passports or refugee status in surrounding countries.

A leader of the ethnic Chechen community in Kyrgyzstan told CNN that the Tsarnaev family left the republic long ago.

"There haven't been any Tsarnaevs living here in 10 or 15 years," Adnan Djubrailov said in a phone call from Kyrgyzstan.

In a statement, the State Committee for National Security of Kyrgyzstan sought to distance itself from the family.

"The Tsarnaev family lived in the town of Tokmok and 12 years ago it moved to live in the Republic of Daghestan in the Russian Federation, from where it emigrated to the USA," it said.

I cannot find anywhere they were full citizens.

Twmaster
April 19, 2013, 04:31 PM
According to (semi) credible news sources the younger suspect (the one still at large) is a naturalized US citizen. The older brother (the now dead one) had a green card and was here legally.

I have to agree with the above. CNN is not a credible news source. At least not anymore. Look at the reporting from John King earlier this week reporting a suspect was in custody. Then the FBI having to make a press statement to the contrary.

It's a shame as CNN used to be very credible.

ETA: I'm relieved this was not a pair of bubbas from Texas.

jmr40
April 19, 2013, 04:35 PM
Not going to defend CNN too strongly, but every news source was reporting a suspect was in custody. The misinformation came from somewhere in LE and every news outlet reported it.

razorback2003
April 19, 2013, 04:55 PM
Mean boys. I doubt they went through the trouble to legally possess weapons in Mass. Also don't you have to be 21 to get a license to carry there to even possess a firearm in MA? I doubt they even had a license.

316SS
April 19, 2013, 05:14 PM
Not even sure why he had full Constitutional rights as a non-citizen.

I cannot find anywhere they were full citizens.

Natural rights are natural. The Constitution doesn't grant them, and there is no reason to imagine that only U.S. citizens possess them. This is in no way meant to absolve these terrorists of the responsibility for what they have done, but I don't see what their citizenship status has to do with it.

OilyPablo
April 19, 2013, 05:18 PM
Natural rights are natural. The Constitution doesn't grant them, and there is no reason to imagine that only U.S. citizens possess them. This is in no way meant to absolve these terrorists of the responsibility for what they have done, but I don't see what their citizenship status has to do with it.

Understood that the Constitution doesn't grant such right - but such natural rights are within our boundaries? Apply to alien invaders?

General Geoff
April 19, 2013, 05:26 PM
Understood that the Constitution doesn't grant such right - but such natural rights are within our boundaries? Apply to alien invaders?
Such natural rights apply everywhere: On United States soil, in Korea, in the middle of the ocean, on the moon, everywhere.

The Constitution prohibits the United States government from infringing on said natural rights, regardless of whose they are or where they are.


Bear in mind most other sovereign states do not recognize the same natural rights that we do, so they very often infringe on them.

316SS
April 19, 2013, 05:31 PM
Understood that the Constitution doesn't grant such right - but such natural rights are within our boundaries? Apply to alien invaders?

No, and No. The right of self defense is inherent in every human. Most (nearly all) nations violate this right of their citizens, but Sir Oliver Blackstone described the right to self defense as a law of nature.

An alien invader (or terrorist) has abdicated his right to self defense by his actions, not his citizenship status.

maxyedor
April 19, 2013, 05:40 PM
There was a suspect in "custody", just as all the news agencies reported. Where it got murky was that the initial suspect was cleared of any involvement, and "in custody" and "under arrest" are not the same, though many use them interchangeably.

Will be interesting what comes of the investigation into how he came into possession of the gun. It may help Pro 2a arguments, or devastate them. Does anybody know off hand what Ma. laws there are for private party transfers, do they go through a dealer or is it cash and carry?

Kevin5098
April 19, 2013, 05:46 PM
To the OP's point - the report I read on the Fox News Website said the dead suspect was arrested for domestic abuse but had no convictions.

Tinpig
April 19, 2013, 07:52 PM
Does anybody know off hand what Ma. laws there are for private party transfers, do they go through a dealer or is it cash and carry?

Face-to-face (no dealer) transfers are OK if both the seller and the buyer are properly licensed for the type of gun being transferred.
I have an unrestricted LTC, so I can sell any gun I legally own directly to another LTC-A holder. However you are also required to fill out a form with buyer, seller, and firearm information and file it with the Mass Dept. of Criminal Justice.

But it's all irrelevant because criminals in Massachusetts don't concern themselves with Massachusetts firearm regulations.

Tinpig

OilyPablo
April 19, 2013, 09:23 PM
The right of self defense is inherent in every human. Most (nearly all) nations violate this right of their citizens, but Sir Oliver Blackstone described the right to self defense as a law of nature.

An alien invader (or terrorist) has abdicated his right to self defense by his actions, not his citizenship status.

That sounds exactly correct.

medalguy
April 19, 2013, 09:28 PM
But......but.....but Obama said a requirement of expanded background checks would prevent firearms from falling into the hands of criminals and terrorists. Since Massachusetts has a very strict law regarding who can purchase a firearm, and the requirement for a potential purchaser to have a state-issued license, does this mean these guys actually BROKE A LAW in possessing their firearms and explosives? The mere thought that a criminal would violate a law is difficult to understand. /sarcasm off

Bruno2
April 19, 2013, 09:35 PM
If he was prohibited to own firearms then none of this should have ever happened. Maybe Frank Lautenbergs amendment doesnt really stop crime?

danez71
April 19, 2013, 09:55 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-marathon-bombing-suspected-tsarnaev-brothers/story?id=19000426


The history of the two suspects in the bombing of the Boston Marathon includes some startling details, but none are more surprising than the revelation that they younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, became a U.S. citizen last year on 9/11, the anniversary of the worst terror attack in U.S. history.

TheSaint
April 19, 2013, 10:02 PM
There's a huge difference between a he said/she said domestic violence dispute and an actual conviction in a court of law by your peers. For instance, many jurisdictions hand out restraining orders like candy with little material evidence that the man or woman charged is guilty.

A restraining order is NOT reason alone enough to deny someone their rights. If the person is a convicted in a court of law by his fellow citizens, I consider that a fair exercise of justice. No American should be advocating the removal of a citizen's rights at the sole discretion of a judge. Full stop.

Averageman
April 19, 2013, 10:18 PM
There's a huge difference between a he said/she said domestic violence dispute and an actual conviction in a court of law by your peers.

In Late 1996 was working in Battalion S2 and one of the Soldiers from my previous platoon approached me and told me that his Wife had filed for divorce.
He told me that She said if he didn't agree immeadiatly to her Attorney's terms She would claim spouce abuse and have him discharged from the Military through the Lautenberg Ammendment.
It concerned me enough to approach the command about a "hypothetical situation".
Essentially at the time it wouldn't even have taken "He said, She said" apparently if She has an Attorney it might only take a She said.

I have read that the Army has taken steps to fix this, but I'm not really sure.

An brief summary:
The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. The Amendment also makes it a felony to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an individual known, or reasonably believed, to have such a conviction. Soldiers are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment.

TheSaint
April 19, 2013, 10:52 PM
Some jurisdictions have even defined domestic violence as "emotional abuse" meaning that bodily violence may not be needed to grant a restraining order. It is a HUGE slippery slope which is why I am extremely skeptical about barring people from owning guns on such grounds, same thing goes for individuals considered mentally suspect. You could also argue that all soldiers that suffer from PTSD should be barred from owning guns upon their return home. Gun grabbers fight through a war of attrition, not from protecting rights and liberties of the individual. That's what we must be wary of.

Deaf Smith
April 19, 2013, 11:16 PM
The one they killed last night, may he rot in hell, was convicted of domestic violence 4 years ago. Hmmmm.....prohibited possessor? Maybe some will see the light, enforce the laws on the books already and stop making new ones for legal citizens!

Mods, I didn't think this was against forum rules, if it is I appologize but had to get this off my chest.
It now turns out a few years ago the FBI was informed by another country that he had ties to terrorist organizations and to check him out. FBI did and said he was okie dokie.

Deaf

Bruno2
April 20, 2013, 02:39 AM
The history of the two suspects in the bombing of the Boston Marathon includes some startling details, but none are more surprising than the revelation that they younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, became a U.S. citizen last year on 9/11, the anniversary of the worst terror attack in U.S. history.

Their uncle claims they have been here for 10 yrs. I couldnt imagine the process taking 9 yrs for a kid to become a citizen.

Solo
April 20, 2013, 03:01 AM
The process may not have started 9 years agon.

The-Reaver
April 20, 2013, 03:08 AM
If he's merely a fall Guy it makes perfect sense.

He's prohibited yet still got it. Most likely through the " gunshow loophole "


Bam more legislation.

parker51
April 20, 2013, 12:19 PM
It was reported last night that they had taken the gun from the MIT police officer and executed him with his own gun. Unclear if they had any other guns.

alsaqr
April 20, 2013, 12:48 PM
BTW: The FBI questioned the older brother two years ago on the behalf of a foreign country.

As first reported by CBS News correspondent Bob Orr, the FBI interviewed Tsarnaev, the elder brother of at-large bombing suspect Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, at the request of a foreign government to see if he had any extremist ties, but failed to find any linkage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580534/fbi-interviewed-dead-boston-bombing-suspect-years-ago/

Hondodawg
April 20, 2013, 01:51 PM
Just read the bombers twitter account who was captured last night. Guess who he supported for president?
You guessed it Obama!

SharpsDressedMan
April 20, 2013, 02:22 PM
Was he a campaign contributor? :rolleyes:

Texshooter
April 20, 2013, 02:30 PM
There's a huge difference between a he said/she said domestic violence dispute and an actual conviction in a court of law by your peers. For instance, many jurisdictions hand out restraining orders like candy with little material evidence that the man or woman charged is guilty.

A restraining order is NOT reason alone enough to deny someone their rights. If the person is a convicted in a court of law by his fellow citizens, I consider that a fair exercise of justice. No American should be advocating the removal of a citizen's rights at the sole discretion of a judge. Full stop.
This is the truth.

A conviction in court of DV is one thing, someone having a Restraining Order against them does not in and of itself mean a thing.

As has been said, those things can be passsed out like candy on Halloween. Nothing has to be proven, just a he said / she said or anything inbetween.

Vector
April 20, 2013, 02:56 PM
Some jurisdictions have even defined domestic violence as "emotional abuse" meaning that bodily violence may not be needed to grant a restraining order. It is a HUGE slippery slope which is why I am extremely skeptical about barring people from owning guns on such grounds

This may not be the thread for a full vetting of this issue, but I fully agree. I am not sure how that passed to begin with without strong opposition of the NRA and gun owners :confused:

Carl N. Brown
April 20, 2013, 04:44 PM
Please rethink everything you have read or hear about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings#Reporting_mistakes
Wiki article on Boston Marathon bombings sub head Reporting mistakes

Bruno2
April 21, 2013, 09:09 PM
Yeah Carl, the media isn't trying to correct any of the unprofessional reporting mistakes they have been making over the yrs. They just blurt out whatever blather any unreliable source tells them.

nulook45
April 22, 2013, 12:24 AM
Look im all for removing a 2a right <TEMPOPRARLY> in cases of proven abuse . I know and have been charged with DV in what amounted to a shouting match with my Ex Wife. I never laid a hand on her or for that matter even threatend her . and when it got to court the witneses recanted there statements to police so the DV charge was dropped . But they also found me guilty of disorderly conduct because the police had to come out to the house. And because of this stupid law. i get delayed or denied all the time when go to buy a gun i apeal the denial and in about 6 months i get it cleared up and next time i get delayed and then cleared . its a pain in the you know. As it stands now the state has no problem with me buying or owning a gun but the feds make me jump thru the hoops every time before aproval .


The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. The Amendment also makes it a felony to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an individual known, or reasonably believed, to have such a conviction. Soldiers are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment.

Carl N. Brown
April 23, 2013, 09:17 PM
News tonight reported the explosives were bought from a fireworks store (inside fireworks of course) and that the bombers had only the one gun.

OilyPablo
April 23, 2013, 09:24 PM
I thought for sure they would have an "arsenal".

TheSaint
April 23, 2013, 09:28 PM
Only one gun? What news source reported that? I read another one that said they had six guns. It seems the media on this particular incident is rushing to press like mad, and we're getting a lot of inconsistent information out there. It makes it very hard to actually make sense of this whole affair.

jerkface11
April 23, 2013, 09:30 PM
Their complete lack of an escape plan proves to me that they didn't plan the bombing either. So more than likely the guns were straw purchases by another member of their cell.

TheSaint
April 23, 2013, 09:32 PM
Possibly even a family member. According to the FBI, after the photos were widely distributed to the public, not a single member of the bombers' immediate family called to turn them in. In many cases, instead of trying to look for long, elaborate links, just stay close to the source. The close friends and family need to be probed as well. Somebody knows something and that's what a good investigator must push for.

AlexanderA
April 24, 2013, 09:27 AM
Exploiting public opinion after the Boston bombing, Sen. Manchin is trying to resurrect his "background check" proposal by adding people on the "terrorist watch list" to those who would be excluded from purchasing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/gun-control-terror-list_n_3143250.html

Of course, being placed on a "terrorist watch list" is not an adjudication of anything. You might simply have a similar name to someone who's suspected of terrorist involvement. Is this a reason to deny a constitutional right?

Arkansas Paul
April 24, 2013, 10:44 AM
It is to easy for a woman to claim a man a domestic abuser and have his rights removed, when nothing has happened.

BS.
A mere accusation of domestic abuse does not mean someone has their rights taken away. The OP said he was CONVICTED, not merely accused.

Vector
April 24, 2013, 03:51 PM
BS.
A mere accusation of domestic abuse does not mean someone has their rights taken away. The OP said he was CONVICTED, not merely accused.

Maybe in the case of the OP, but as mentioned, in places like CA, a much lower threshold is being applied to take away peoples 2A rights.

Xiphoticness
April 24, 2013, 06:42 PM
In North Carolina you cannot posses or purchase a firearm while you are under a restraining order, I know because my neighbor was placed under one for a year when he and his old lady had a falling out. She claimed he assaulted her, I was there and he didn't but he didn't fight the restraining order for several reasons, mostly because it worked both ways and he wanted her to stay away from him. The whole experience was eye opening to me. One woman, with only her word and testimony from myself and another witness to the effect that she was lying through her teeth, was able to revoke a man's second amendment rights because it was too costly to hire a lawyer and take her to court over the issue and without a restraining order against her she would have harassed him to no end.

parker51
April 24, 2013, 07:50 PM
News tonight reported the explosives were bought from a fireworks store (inside fireworks of course) and that the bombers had only the one gun.

This was reported on the Boston Herald, Huffington Post and several other web sites.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/officials_boston_bombing_suspects_had_1_gun

Not sure we will ever know the truth. There was a report last Friday that they had executed the one policeman with his own gun. However today, they are saying the one handgun had the serial number scratched off.

parker51
April 24, 2013, 08:02 PM
CBS News is now reporting that the MIT officer's (Shawn Collier) holster had a locking system on it and that prevented it from being taken. They are also reporting that the 2nd suspect did not have a gun in the boat and that one of the officers started shooting at him when he said he saw something in his hand that he thought might be a bomb. When the other police arrived and heard the shooting they thought it was the suspect that was shooting at them so they returned fire.

http://widget.newsinc.com/_cfvp/playlist16x9_player.html?WID=21885&VID=24758154&freewheel=90017&sitesection=bostonherald_nws_loc_non&external_url=http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/officials_boston_bombing_suspects_had_1_gun

If you enjoyed reading about "Boston bomber was a prohibited possessor." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!