Feinstein uses Navy Yard shooting to call for more gun control.

Am I mistaken, or does Federal law prohibit a person who is legal resident in one state purchasing ANY firearm in another state without having FFL's involved in both states to complete the transaction, after a background check has been conducted and found the purchaser to be eligble? I know at one point that was only for handguns, but I thought it had been expanded for ALL guns.
 
President Clinton's executive order making bases gun free zones is responsible for the body count at the Navy Yard and Fort Hood. Gun free zones only serve one purpose - to make a shooting gallery easily accessible to a crazy gunman. Somehow the fact that so many soldiers (or sailors) were unarmed and unable to defend themselves is escaping the media.

I also learned today that our bases overseas are also safe "gun free zones". Can you imagine a coordinated attack by 2 or 3 terrorists? This is crazy.
Click to expand...

Its bad enough that liberal politicians do not trust law abiding citizens with guns, but its appalling that they do not trust our soldiers with guns. Of what value is a military that cannot be trusted to carry guns?
 
With an average 18 people per year killed by mass shootings, do we really have a need or even a capability to deal with it? That's in the same neighborhood as deaths by shark attacks or falling coconuts and vending machines. It's a statistical anomaly. And I'm not convinced you can stop anomalies.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. If we really want to tackle numbers that are not anomalies, the focus should be on the daily unreported carnage in the hood.
 
Interesting - the Washington Post had two columns, both stating the more gun control legislation won't happen and point out some of the anomaly analyses made above.

It's also reported that the shooter tried to buy an AR out of the state of his residence and was stopped. That's why he had the shotgun.

But, given the deadly nature of the shotgun - would the antis push those to the forefront of the ban attempts. Given shotguns are more ingrained in the sportsmen nature of firearms, would this be counterproductive for them. Would the Zumbo-oid crowd feel threatened? Pumps are classic guns. I suppose they could attack the higher capacity guns.
 
USAFNoDak said:
Am I mistaken, or does Federal law prohibit a person who is legal resident in one state purchasing ANY firearm in another state without having FFL's involved in both states to complete the transaction, after a background check has been conducted and found the purchaser to be eligble?
Click to expand...
Revoltella said:
You are mistaken. You can buy long guns while out of state.
Click to expand...
Revo, you forgot an essential follow-on statement: IF the purchase complies with the regulations of the buyer's home state. IOW the long gun must be legal to own and possess in the buyer's state of residence, and any local licensing and/or registration requirements must be followed.

The sheer complexity of the regulations in restrictive areas causes some out-of-state FFL's to balk at performing such transactions, particularly when the FFL isn't familiar with the jurisdiction in question. I can understand an FFL's unwillingness to wade through dozens of pages of state regulations to check whether a transaction is lawful when the buyer likely isn't going to offer repeat business.
Glenn E. Meyer said:
It's also reported that the shooter tried to buy an AR out of the state of his residence and was stopped. That's why he had the shotgun.
Click to expand...
I speculate that the out-of-state AR transaction may have been thwarted by the factors I described. I haven't been able to verify this, however.
 
I do not believe he tried to buy an AR, but rather rented it to shoot and returned it before leaving.
 
The (unconfirmed) report that I heard was that he rented an AR at a range, but that he purchased the shotgun.

It's still speculative, at this point.
 
That's what I read too. The gun store employee was vehement that Alexis never attempted to buy the AR. He merely took it to the range. If he had attempted to buy the AR, why wouldn't he have been able to? Are they illegal in the District? Even if they are, other reporting suggested he still had a Texas ID, and he didn't have any permanent living arrangement in D.C. (he and some coworkers were staying at some sort of residential motel), so he might well have given his old Texas address on the 4473.

Glenn, are you getting that from this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_...tried-to-buy-assault-rifle-but-was-unable-to/

That article says he did try to buy the AR-15, but it would have been shipped to a dealer in his home state. I admit I've never tried to buy a long gun out of state, but I didn't think there was any difference between buying a shotgun and a rifle.

I think CBS is mixing up laws, because that's what you have to do for handguns; you would have to have the handgun shipped to a FFL in your home state and then go through the background check with that FFL.

Here's more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-store-where-aaron-alexis-bought-his-shotgun/

The employee says Alexis asked about buying a handgun and was informed it would have to be shipped to his state of residence.

The press has to be fuming that they can't connect this incident to assault weapons. First he was found with an AR-15 that he bought legally. Then he had an AR-15 that he retrieved from a gun safe on the base (why the media would think an outside contractor would have access to an arms locker, I have no idea), or he took it from one of his victims. Then he didn't have an AR-15 but he asked about buying one and was told he couldn't. All wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
Last edited:
Its bad enough that liberal politicians do not trust law abiding citizens with guns, but its appalling that they do not trust our soldiers with guns. Of what value is a military that cannot be trusted to carry guns?
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope that a debate on this is ignited. I'm trusted with a top-secret clearance and to fly $100 million dollar aircraft, but even as an officer, I can't carry a side-arm to my desk job or when I go to the Exchange... rather, in a crisis, I've basically been trained to hide and call the police and wait for them to arrive (just like anybody else in a "gun free" workplace) while some psycho walks the cubicles executing my friends.

There's been a lot of talk in the media about the "instant response" of the police forces who were on scene within minutes... and not taking anything away from those warriors, but we all know what happened in those minutes.

A military base is for all intents and purposes, a "gun free" zone just like a school or theater. There is a hypothetical "minimum response time" from some sort of armed security, be it base police or MA's... assuming they get the location right, can get in, don't get in a traffic collision while responding, they're not ambushed on arrival, can actually find the shooter, oops multiple shooters, etc... and that's assuming there's only one "scene". How many shooting scenes on one base until response is overwhelmed and there's no more people to respond?

The only possible advantage on a base would be that military people as a group have a command structure and hopefully fall back on basic crisis-management training. This obviously can and does happen in civilian settings, but it's more automatic with the military. Screaming and running is not my trained first response. I know that in my building, with known quantity of people surrounding me in the office, we would assess the situation, realize what it was, and quickly make cold, hard, calculated decisions... even if that decision ended up being to blockade the door and call police, or even to run. I'd much rather advance down the hallway with 2 guys at my back and an issue M11 in my hand, but currently, policymakers feel it's better for people to die rather than train and equip them to effectively fight back against an active shooter. Don't get me wrong, we have "active shooter" training, but it's definitely not to fight back.
 
I saw it on politico or the Washington Post but won't bet the farm on it.

We should again drop the rhetoric of liberal politicians. I can quote chapter and verse of so-called conservatives who happily hate guns.

If we are to win the gun debate, you need a touch more sophistication in the argument than cliches.
 
President Clinton's executive order making bases gun free zones is responsible for the body count at the Navy Yard and Fort Hood.
Click to expand...
Um...you guys do know that the policy in question was implemented in 1992 by President Bush, right? It's DoD Directive 5210.56.

Army regulation 190-14, which is what the pundits seem to be referencing, was an expansion of that, which was approved by President Clinton.

We need to check our facts very carefully before we going making statements like that.
 
@tyme, the rules for buying non-NFA longarms outside your state of residence are the same. If you complete the 4473 and pass the NICS check, you're good to go. Since Alexis bought the shotgun in Virginia, NOT DC, DC rules/laws wouldn't have applied had he elected to buy an AR-15 or any other rifle.
 
Calling it "group of hardcore Republicans" in response to a cartoon depicting an ar15 with a NRA stamp and using the Capital building and the Washington Monument as the sights.
Click to expand...
That's not an AR-15. It's a Mini-14. Which was also not used to harm anyone at the Navy Yard.

In fact, I can't think of a high-profile crime involving it since the 1986 FBI shootout. That cartoonist fails.
 
A military base is for all intents and purposes, a "gun free" zone just like a school or theater. There is a hypothetical "minimum response time" from some sort of armed security, be it base police or MA's... assuming they get the location right, can get in, don't get in a traffic collision while responding, they're not ambushed on arrival, can actually find the shooter, oops multiple shooters, etc... and that's assuming there's only one "scene". How many shooting scenes on one base until response is overwhelmed and there's no more people to respond?
Click to expand...

You left out "told to stand down by the Capitol Police watch commander" :mad:
 
It's precisely the fact that mass shootings are virtually unpreventable combined with the guaranteed national publicity that accompanies them that has made them a focus of those who promote gun control.
Click to expand...
With so few and so unpreventable some may wonder why they pursue it so feverishly.

Do they truly believe that we as humans have the power to make a perfect world according to their eyes? A Utopia where we all are Citizens who march and dance to the tune of "No Guns for Citizens = no mass shootings and no murder by gun"?

IMHO these people are whacked in the head and not that different from a cult.

Don't get me wrong, some see it as a political move for a police state and ultimate power, but for the ones who really think they are doing the "right thing" by traveling down that road really have some reality issues.
 
Never looked closely at it, just assumed they used the AR15 as with all the false reports of one being used in the Navy yard shooting. :D
Click to expand...
Actually, I may be wrong. It could also be a full-auto AR-15 shotgun.
 
SamNavy said:
I sincerely hope that a debate on this is ignited. I'm trusted with a top-secret clearance and to fly $100 million dollar aircraft, but even as an officer, I can't carry a side-arm to my desk job or when I go to the Exchange... rather, in a crisis, I've basically been trained to hide and call the police and wait for them to arrive (just like anybody else in a "gun free" workplace) while some psycho walks the cubicles executing my friends.
Click to expand...
Any commander that authorized blanket CCW would be canned the first time some E-2 had an ND into his GOV truck.

Probable career ending outcomes outweigh possible life saving outcomes for most people.

(If you won "SecDef for the day" and instituted CCW rules, I'd be happy.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top