Boston bomber was a prohibited possessor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Yo Mama said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Just read the bombers twitter account who was captured last night. Guess who he supported for president?
You guessed it Obama!
 
TheSaint said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheSaint said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
Domestic violence

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
It is to easy for a woman to claim a man a domestic abuser and have his rights removed, when nothing has happened.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arkansas Paul said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top