I think it’s one of those things that you can always get a lot of people to say they want, but it’s very low on their priority list, so they don’t get all worked up when they don’t get it. Lots of people, apparently, want a pony. News at 11.
I honestly am not sure that we disagree here, and maybe it’s because I didn’t listen to what St. Rachel had to say. Your link was to video that started with a commercial, so I opted out.
But still, I hear a lot of kvetching and little in the way of what you propose we do. What do you propose, and then I’ll tell you if we are in agreement or not. The point I was making is that whatever gun rights we determine people should have, it’s unclear to me that being on the TIDE list should take them away. It’s not a list of known terrorists, it’s a big-ass list of people who mostly aren’t. Plus, let’s not forget that the younger brother was a full-fledged citizen who was not on any such list, and AFAIK had not run ins with the law. He would pass a background check with flying colors, no?
The reason I brought up the TIDE list was that it could have been used to more quickly locate Tamarlan once they had his picture, not that it should have been used against him before the crime was committed. Perhaps when this is better understood we can make changes to how information is used if it turns out there were red flags about that guy which everyone missed.
Generally speaking, the 2nd Amendment argument is irrelevant, their attack was primarily perpetuated with black powder rendered from fireworks. One police officer was killed and the other injured in a shootout, but at least half of the duo was not legally allowed to own guns in the first place because of his age. And we would not be talking about this case if not for the bomb they detonated, so the 2nd Amendment debate is a total non sequitur.
Really? You can’t own guns if you’re 19 years old?
Not because of his age. However, I’m unaware that either suspect #1 or #2 had a valid Massachusetts FID card. No card = not legal to own or carry a firearm. It looks like they may have been breaking the law. Of course, randomly shooting at anyone, including police officers, throwing bombs, planting bombs, hijacking cars, robbing stores, and killing a security officer is also illegal. It appears that suspect #1 and #2 don’t care what the law says. I doublt they would have obey’d any taggant requirements, either.
*GUN LICENSING REQUIREMENTS
Massachusetts residents 15 years and older who wish to possess, carry, transport firearms, ammunition and feeding devices are required to have a firearms license.
TYPES OF FIREARMS LICENSES
- CLASS “A” LTC: Permits the purchase, possession and carrying of all ammunition, handguns, rifles, shotguns and feeding devices (both large* and non-large capacity). This is the only license that allows the carrying of concealed handguns-either loaded or unloaded.
- CLASS “B” LTC: Permits the purchase, possession and carrying of all ammunition, non-large capacity handguns, and all rifles and shotguns (large* and non-large capacity).
APPLICATION PROCESS AND FEES
Your local police department is your firearms license issuing authority and can provide the forms and information needed to apply. Contact your local police department before taking any other actions. The police department will tell you what they require for gun license applications.
New LTC applicants must be 21 years of age or older to obtain a Class “A” or Class “B” permit.
Class “A” and “B” LTC licenses cost $100.00 and are valid for 6 years.
New FID applicants must be at least 18 years old (or 15 – 17 years old with parental consent).*
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm
How do you think that would have been a factor? A taggant requirement would obviously apply to the manufacturer and maybe the seller, not the buyer. Or are you assuming they would have mixed their own if the requirement were in place?
Can’t purchase a handgun if you’re under 21 (which the younger brother was - and I think that handguns were the only firearms used by the two brothers).
How about I turn that around and ask what you think we might possibly “do” that would get past the baliistophiliac community? The recently defeated measures were mild to the point of non-existence with solid public support. The NRA simply reached into the pocket where they keep a handful of Congressional testicles, and squeezed.
As i said upthread, I’d be tickled half to death if nothing like Newtown ever happened again. Then I could retain my Keep The Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You stance. Anybody have any reason to believe that such is the case?
Its not legislation I fear, its stupid legislation I fear. And the likelihood of stupid legislation goes up every time the shit hits the fan. And nothing ensures stupid as much as fear.
And as far as that goes, what’s your plan? Got one? Muddle along with the status quo until somebody comes up with the perfect plan? Well, that does have the advantage of not committing you to any crazy, radical plan for change. Has it got any other advantages?
Yeah, that was wrong from typing a hasty post. In Massachusetts you can only purchase or possess small-capacity rifles, shotguns and ammunition prior to age 21.
So the guns in question would have been illegal for Dzhokhar to possess or purchase under any conditions in Massachusetts, and since they did not get the mandatory FID card they were actually illegal for either brother to purchase or possess.
Can’t purchase at a dealer or a gun show or from another person or all oh the above? And can’t possess?
elucidatir: Why is it that whenever I ask you what you propose, you insist I vo first? I aked you, so show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
I haven’t done thorough research, but Massachusetts law repeatedly says “own” and “possess.” To own or possess any weapon you need an FID, I’m even seeing a gun rights website that says if you inherit a firearm in Massachusetts you have 180 days to apply for an FID if you intend to maintain possession of the firearm.
So it would seem to strongly suggest any ownership of a firearm without an FID is illegal in Massachusetts, and ownership/possession/purchase/carry of anything other than small-capacity rifles and shotguns is also illegal for persons under the age of 21.
If that happens every time, doesn’t that mean that you never go first? Besides, Janie Sue Perkins taught me that trick, I showed her mine and she didn’t show me hers until she was seventeen.
Yeah, but was it worth the wait?
Possess - depends on the state. But purchase - Federal law restricts sales of handguns to persons 21 or older. So a 19 year old can’t legally purchase one anywhere.
Worth the wait? Oh, hell, yes! Worth the vexations, conniptions, gymnastics and expense? Only just barely.
Hey, wait a minute, you changed the subject! You know, one of these days, that isn’t going to work.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll bring my pitchfork the the anti-2nd amendment rally if you promise to bring some of the good stuff. Deal?
Isn’t the sole purpose of including taggants to help PD’s ID each “buyer” from manufacuture-to-end user? These two monsters, the Columbine bombers, the Aurora bomber, would all be considered the “end user” of their particular type of bombs.
If the taggants can be easily removed, they won’t be around to help ID the “end user”.
If taggants were to be required for “home brew” black powder, I doubt these two monsters would halt their plans to murder innocent people simply because they didn’t have any “legal” taggants to add to their pipe bombs.
Bah! Not “anti” the 2nd Amendment in any meaningful way. But interpreting it in an unreasonable and destructive fashion does not honor it. And no matter what it says, and even less what people think it says, the right to keep and bear arms has already been “abridged”, and the world did not end, and the Founding Fathers did not rise from their graves to wreak vengeance.
If the Constitution could be destroyed by such regulation, it already has been. And yet, here we are. So, no, it is not necessary to change the Constitution in order to have a more sane approach to firearms. And no, the Constitution is not at risk. If the Constitution wasn’t destroyed by J. Edgar Hoover rounding up lefties and deporting them. then forbidding my crazy Uncle Fred from buying an assault weapon won’t do it either.
I guess I’m more radical than you. I’d like to get rid of the 2nd amendment. It probably made sense 250 years ago, but not now.
But if we disagree on this point, can you still bring the good stuff? If not, I have plenty of other sources, so no worries. I just thought we might find some common ground, but whatever.