Boston Suspects Did Not Have Valid Handgun Licenses (Really?)

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licenses
By Jonathan Allen | Reuters – 9 hrs ago

By Jonathan Allen

(Reuters) - The two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, who police say engaged in a gun battle with officers early Friday after a frenzied manhunt, were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived, authorities said on Sunday.

In the confrontation with police on the streets of a Boston suburb, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were armed with handguns, at least one rifle and several explosive devices, authorities say.

But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived, a fact that may add to the national debate over current gun laws. Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, legislation that opponents argued would do nothing to stop criminals from buying guns illegally.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed in the shootout with police, would have been required to apply for a gun license with the local police department where he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

But there is no record of him having done so, according to Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello.

Even if he had earlier received a gun license from somewhere outside Cambridge, that license would have to be registered with Cambridge police upon becoming a resident of the city, Riviello said. In Massachusetts, gun licenses are issued by municipal police departments.

"There is no record of him having a license to carry," Riviello told Reuters.

Tsarnaev's younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, who was captured alive on Friday after the manhunt, would have been too young to get a handgun license. Under state law, residents under 21 may only apply for a so-called firearms identification card, which allows the holder to own only rifles that hold 10 rounds or less and shotguns.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had no record of a firearms ID card in Cambridge. The police department in Dartmouth, where Dzhokhar was a student, said they had no record of gun licenses or ID cards for either brother.

Police in nearby New Bedford, where the younger brother may have lived in the past, could not confirm on Sunday whether they had issued Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a firearms ID card.

Federal law enforcement agencies have not confirmed a full tally of the brothers' arsenal.

Within hours of their images being released on Thursday, the two brothers are accused of shooting dead a Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus police officer in his car, hijacking at least one car at gunpoint, and of shooting at least one police officer during the gun battle in nearby Watertown.

(Reporting By Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Eric Beech)

[Legacy Fan]

I, for one, am shocked. It's so easy to own acquire a firearm legally in this country, why would they not follow the laws?

 

SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THIS!! MOAR LAWS!!!

[calfoxwc]

Think of all the American citizens in excellent standing, who go by the law on gun ownership.

 

Odd, criminals don't go by the laws.

 

More gun control? Like anyfreakinbody is ignorant enough to imagine that criminals will abide by the laws?

 

(Hint to gun control freaks: "Criminals". They ...break....the ....law....so....what IS the REAL freakin point of gun control?

[MLD Woody]

Exactly. Criminals don't follow laws so why make them?

 

I say legalize murder and robbery. A criminal won't follow those laws anyway, so why have them?

[calfoxwc]

As usual, you are stupidly missing the point. It wasn't "any gun control"..... it was MORE gun control.

 

Damn, can't you ever keep up? Honestly, Woody, do you legitimately have a learning disability regarding "reading comprehension" ?

 

No put down here if you do. It would just explain a lot.

[Westside Steve]

Exactly. Criminals don't follow laws so why make them?

 

I say legalize murder and robbery. A criminal won't follow those laws anyway, so why have them?

well that's kind of the plan for dope and illegal immigration...

WSS

[MLD Woody]

As usual, you are stupidly missing the point. It wasn't "any gun control"..... it was MORE gun control.

 

Damn, can't you ever keep up? Honestly, Woody, do you legitimately have a learning disability regarding "reading comprehension" ?

 

No put down here if you do. It would just explain a lot.

So it was just the extra law you don't like then?

 

 

I have a hard time comprehending your crazy ramblings, yes.

[MLD Woody]

well that's kind of the plan for dope and illegal immigration...

WSS

Well marijuana should be legalized and taxed. Anyone that really wants it can get it right now anyway. Legalizing it won't turn us into a nation of Lady potheads...

 

But that's for another thread

[heckofajobbrownie]

"The desire to read one’s political biases into acts of violence is unfortunate and, unfortunately, bipartisan. But if there is any little thing to be thankful for about the case of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, it’s that it defies easy classification. Those who try to tell a simple story about who they were or why they resorted to terrorism will end up like the six blind men and the elephant: each partially in the right, and all in the wrong."

 

 

- Daniel Foster, NRO

[calfoxwc]

So it was just the extra law you don't like then?
I have a hard time comprehending your crazy ramblings, yes. Woodypeckerhead

*****************************************************

Universal background checks. And banning any more types of guns.

 

I have said many times I have no problem with current background checks. Criminals won't do background checks.

 

I've passed background checks for gun purchases, military, exclusive access to corp information as a consultant, etc.

No big deal here. None of those impact my freedom to own guns. Extending that, does. Hint: That's why it is the way it is now.

 

And, you have a hard time with most of us on this board.

[MLD Woody]

Exactly. You don't want them because you believe criminals won't follow them. Well then why not get rid of all the laws? I mean, criminals aren't going to follow them anyway so what's the point?

 

 

No Cal... you are the only one on this board who's posts I read and then consistently sigh in disbelief as my faith in humanity slowly dies

[Westside Steve]

"The desire to read ones political biases into acts of violence is unfortunate and, unfortunately, bipartisan. But if there is any little thing to be thankful for about the case of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, its that it defies easy classification. Those who try to tell a simple story about who they were or why they resorted to terrorism will end up like the six blind men and the elephant: each partially in the right, and all in the wrong."

 

 

- Daniel Foster, NRO

excellent point.

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

"The desire to read one’s political biases into acts of violence is unfortunate and, unfortunately, bipartisan. But if there is any little thing to be thankful for about the case of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, it’s that it defies easy classification. Those who try to tell a simple story about who they were or why they resorted to terrorism will end up like the six blind men and the elephant: each partially in the right, and all in the wrong."

 

 

- Daniel Foster, NRO

If anything, we can resume merely hating on Eastern European terrorists like in the good ole' days of DieHard and Patriot Games*.

 

 

*Yes I know patriot Games featured terrorism from the IRA, but I'm pretty sure everyone thought that "Sean Miller" spent all of 1984 getting punched in the face by Apollo Creed and Rocky Balboa and not guzzling pints of Guinness with our very own Westside Steve.

[calfoxwc]

Read my post again, woodypeckerhead.

 

The current background check system does a lot of good, could be tightened up a bit.

 

But letting it become a springboard for gun registration, which Obamao and Holder's marxist INJustice dept

 

have said, would be required with universal background checks. How else could you monitor. The idiots you worship on the lib national stage,

 

want more gun control, when what we have works, but still doesn't stop random acts of murder and violence. Nothing will stop it.

 

The tipping point is more and more gun control that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens to no avail in reducing gun crime,

 

to the violation of our 2nd Amendment.

 

compliance of private gun sales?

 

Seriously, you don't know your woodpeckerhead from a hole in the moon. Being quiet would make you look a bit wiser.

 

Maybe.

[gftChris]

I'm wondering if there should be more of a restriction on the ammo than the weapon. A rubber bullet to the gut would take anyone down as well as a real bullet, but less lethal. Obviously, it's open to the same sorts of abuse, criminals will always get real bullet etc. but it would allow everyone to keep their weapons, keep their independence and not stomp all over that precious second amendment.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

No thank you.

[The Cysko Kid]

I'm wondering if there should be more of a restriction on the ammo than the weapon. A rubber bullet to the gut would take anyone down as well as a real bullet, but less lethal. Obviously, it's open to the same sorts of abuse, criminals will always get real bullet etc. but it would allow everyone to keep their weapons, keep their independence and not stomp all over that precious second amendment.

I've suggested that myself several times but the idea will go over poorly here

[heckofajobbrownie]

Gun control is dead for the foreseeable future.

 

Yes, after multiple incidents of nuts getting guns and shooting everyone in sight, including one involving two dozen elementary school children, we didn't do anything to make it harder for nuts to get guns, even though we all seemed to agree that we should.

 

Makes you feel warm inside.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Will be interesting to see where and how easily these two came by their arsenal.

[VaporTrail]

Gun control is dead for the foreseeable future.

 

Yes, after multiple incidents of nuts getting guns and shooting everyone in sight, including one involving two dozen elementary school children, we didn't do anything to make it harder for nuts to get guns, even though we all seemed to agree that we should.

 

Makes you feel warm inside.

 

Background checks only would make it harder to get legal guns and they wouldn't have done anything to stop Lanza. The checks may have stopped Holmes, but as he had a clean criminal record, I don't think that a history of clinical depression was sufficient to deny him gun ownership.

[gftChris]

I don't think that a history of clinical depression was sufficient to deny him gun ownership.

Well something seems wrong there.

[The Cysko Kid]

Gun control is dead for the foreseeable future.

 

Yes, after multiple incidents of nuts getting guns and shooting everyone in sight, including one involving two dozen elementary school children, we didn't do anything to make it harder for nuts to get guns, even though we all seemed to agree that we should.

 

Makes you feel warm inside.

 

No because guns make everyone safer as evidenced by the no gun vigilantes stepping up to stop anything.

[Westside Steve]

of course you privacy boys might sound an alarm bell when you hear someone talking about registering cases of clinical depression anyway. Seems like those non threatening cases might be something one would want to be kept secret?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

 

Background checks only would make it harder to get legal guns and they wouldn't have done anything to stop Lanza. The checks may have stopped Holmes, but as he had a clean criminal record, I don't think that a history of clinical depression was sufficient to deny him gun ownership.

 

You're also forgetting Cho at Virginia Tech, who would have been/should have been stopped.

 

But let's stop arranging this discussion as if the argument is "Let's go back and re-jigger things so they fix what already happened in our heads." That's not the argument. The argument is whether or not this law or that law would have prevented Lanza from getting guns, perhaps we should look at ways in which we might prevent similarly insane people/felons from easily acquiring weapons.

 

Nor do I buy your "background checks only would make it harder to get legal guns" argument. One, if background checks are already the norm at legal retailers and that presents no undue burden, then it shouldn't matter if they're extended to other gun sales. Two, since the goal of background checks isn't "to make it easy for one to purchase legal guns" it shouldn't matter that it makes it slightly harder.

 

Sure, we don't want to make it overly burdensome for law-abiding citizens, but that's the whole point - to prove you're a sane, law-abiding citizen. Unless your preference is to walk into a gun store and walk out with a new gun without having anyone make it "harder" then surely you'd agree that there is a benefit to public safety that may also be entered into the equation, especially since public safety requirements are imposed all over the American economy and in all sorts of ways.

[VaporTrail]

Well something seems wrong there.

 

Eh, I don't think that clinical depression should result in the denial of gun ownership. It should be a flag, but not the bottom line.

 

No because guns make everyone safer as evidenced by the no gun vigilantes stepping up to stop anything.

 

 

I'm pro-gun, but that idea scares the shit out of me. Suppose everyone had a gun in the Aurora theater and pulled them out to shoot back at the guy. Suddenly the room is filled with 50 gun-toting wannabe heroes that just start offing each other. Furthermore, I don't think that there is a sufficient amount of training that a civilian can undergo to actually be prepared for a situation where someone suddenly starts shooting. Hell, take a look how many innocents the cops shot up when they were looking out for Dorner, and those are people with a significant amount of firearms training. Vigilantism is not my idea of safety.

 

 

You're also forgetting Cho at Virginia Tech, who would have been/should have been stopped.

 

But let's stop arranging this discussion as if the argument is "Let's go back and re-jigger things so they fix what already happened in our heads." That's not the argument. The argument is whether or not this law or that law would have prevented Lanza from getting guns, perhaps we should look at ways in which we might prevent similarly insane people/felons from easily acquiring weapons.

 

Nor do I buy your "background checks only would make it harder to get legal guns" argument. One, if background checks are already the norm at legal retailers and that presents no undue burden, then it shouldn't matter if they're extended to other gun sales. Two, since the goal of background checks isn't "to make it easy for one to purchase legal guns" it shouldn't matter that it makes it slightly harder.

 

Sure, we don't want to make it overly burdensome for law-abiding citizens, but that's the whole point - to prove you're a sane, law-abiding citizen. Unless your preference is to walk into a gun store and walk out with a new gun without having anyone make it "harder" then surely you'd agree that there is a benefit to public safety that may also be entered into the equation, especially since public safety requirements are imposed all over the American economy and in all sorts of ways.

 

If the government starts trying to introduce too much legislation, then sane, law-abiding citizens become sane, law-breaking citizens. Look no further than digital media piracy. If people could download a car, you bet your ass they would. Most people presented with two options for the same goal will take the route with less paperwork and waiting. When you live in a country where there are 88 guns for every 100 people, you don't have to look very far to bypass whatever hoops the government wants to set up.

[heckofajobbrownie]

If the government starts trying to introduce too much legislation, then sane, law-abiding citizens become sane, law-breaking citizens.

 

Again, I find this entirely unconvincing even if I accept the general rule that too much legislation becomes cumbersome and often counterproductive. The problem with legislation in the arena of gun ownership isn't that there's too much of it; it's that often there's none at all.

 

There should be pre-requisites to gun ownership. Right now there are areas where there are literally none. This bill started to address that hole. It would have been an improvement over the current system and wouldn't have placed an undue burden on legal gun owners. In fact, it's the same one they have already - they have to pass a background check.

 

What specifically did you think was wrong with the bill?

[Westside Steve]

just so I'm clear:

we don't trust the federal government to expand surveillance into emails et cetera because they might do something out of bounds sometime who knows maybe...

but we completely trust that same federal government to make a compilation of every gun owner and their individual personal history with no fear ofever using that list to crack down.

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

 

Again, I find this entirely unconvincing even if I accept the general rule that too much legislation becomes cumbersome and often counterproductive. The problem with legislation in the arena of gun ownership isn't that there's too much of it; it's that often there's none at all.

 

There should be pre-requisites to gun ownership. Right now there are areas where there are literally none. This bill started to address that hole. It would have been an improvement over the current system and wouldn't have placed an undue burden on legal gun owners. In fact, it's the same one they have already - they have to pass a background check.

 

What specifically did you think was wrong with the bill?

 

I don't really see the benefit to background checks to begin with. If you fail a background check, you still have a viable (illegal) route to acquire a firearm. Nothing about the problem is actually going to be helped unless you make guns less ubiquitous, and I think that is an impossible task. My solution, likely to your dismay, is to deal with it. 99.99% of law-abiding citizens aren't ever going to be looking down the barrel of a gun. None of this legislation is going to do anything to protect that 0.01% of people who are victims of a premeditated mass shooting. We decided long ago that we're a country that's going to be armed to the teeth, shootings by social outcasts are an unfortunate side effect of this, and we're just going to have to live with it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The benefit of background checks would be to keep felons and the mentally ill from legally acquiring firearms. Your position is that they'll get them illegally anyway. Yes, some will. And in doing so they'll be breaking the law. That's a good thing - we'll have another way to charge criminal suspects and increase jail terms. And some won't. Some will want a gun at the spur of the moment and then won't be able to get one legally. This is a good thing. It will reduce crime and gun violence.

 

This is about reducing the incidence of gun violence. It's about creating a system where the vast majority of gun purchases are going to have to go through a background check system. It's not a system designed to prevent all tragedy via mass shooting, or past tragedies, as you continue to insist.

 

And it may help stop some of those shootings as well. If the VT shooter had been flagged, and couldn't have purchased his guns off the internet as he did, passing all of his background checks, he would have had another now illegal step to take to acquire those guns. Now, maybe he goes that extra mile and finds those guns. Or maybe he doesn't. There's no way to tell. But I'd much, much rather have a system in place that doesn't allow him to acquire them all while sitting at his computer.

 

The reality of large amounts of gun violence in a country armed to the teeth, as you say, is something we have to acknowledge. Throwing in the towel and pretending that there's nothing we can do when there are things we can do, namely create a system of background checks, is not something we have to acknowledge.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

The benefit of background checks would be to keep felons and the mentally ill from legally acquiring firearms. Your position is that they'll get them illegally anyway. Yes, some will. And in doing so they'll be breaking the law. That's a good thing - we'll have another way to charge criminal suspects and increase jail terms. And some won't. Some will want a gun at the spur of the moment and then won't be able to get one legally. This is a good thing. It will reduce crime and gun violence.

 

This is about reducing the incidence of gun violence. It's about creating a system where the vast majority of gun purchases are going to have to go through a background check system. It's not a system designed to prevent all tragedy via mass shooting, or past tragedies, as you continue to insist.

 

And it may help stop some of those shootings as well. If the VT shooter had been flagged, and couldn't have purchased his guns off the internet as he did, passing all of his background checks, he would have had another now illegal step to take to acquire those guns. Now, maybe he goes that extra mile and finds those guns. Or maybe he doesn't. There's no way to tell. But I'd much, much rather have a system in place that doesn't allow him to acquire them all while sitting at his computer.

 

The reality of large amounts of gun violence in a country armed to the teeth, as you say, is something we have to acknowledge. Throwing in the towel and pretending that there's nothing we can do when there are things we can do, namely create a system of background checks, is not something we have to acknowledge.

Even if you buy off of the computer, you still have to go in person to pick them up, and then you go thru the background check. I lived in Virginia, and bought a weapon thru the internet in 2007. You order, pick up at a licensed dealer, and THEN you go through the background check. It took a few minutes, they gave me my weapon and I was on my way. It is no different then buying in person.