Dayton Shooter

catch · Aug 12, 2019

Just heard Dayton shooter may have got his gun from a straw purchase. If true He(The purchaser) should be charged and maybe sentenced to death for the murders.

Occam · Aug 12, 2019

catch said:
Just heard Dayton shooter may have got his gun from a straw purchase. If true He(The purchaser) should be charged and maybe sentenced to death for the murders.

What I'm seeing is that his prohibited (lying about drug use) buddy procured the "body armor" and the drum mag for him so his parents wouldn't find out. The killer got his firearm through an FFL after an online purchase. Heard something in passing about his buddy helping him "mod" the rifle, but who knows. More to the point here, did his drug using buddy know that his Sanders/Warren-loving leftist Antifa-groupie friend was about to go and kill people?

Inigoes · Aug 12, 2019

Dayton shooting: Feds say friend of Betts bought gun parts for him

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/da...ought-gun-parts-for-him/ar-AAFHy7x?ocid=ientp

catch · Aug 12, 2019

Sorry for the post... He just got armor,parts and ammo.

Silverlode · Aug 12, 2019

catch said:
If true He(The purchaser) should be charged and maybe sentenced to death for the murders.

I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law. Unless he knew that the intended use was criminal, in which case he is an accomplice. I admittedly did not yet read the article, so if it states something of that nature I retract my disagreement.

BeoBill · Aug 12, 2019

I'll leave it to a jury to determine his pal's guilt of innocence.

marko · Aug 12, 2019

I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law.

There are reasonable limits, my friend. That is all.

Silverlode · Aug 12, 2019

marko said:
There are reasonable limits, my friend. That is all.

Who decides what is reasonable? If he conspired to commit murder, there are penalties for that. As a stand alone crime, straw purchase is illegitimate.

3paul10 · Aug 12, 2019

Oh boy....be careful with the straw purchase stuff.....

Silverlode · Aug 12, 2019

3paul10 said:
Oh boy....be careful with the straw purchase stuff.....

I’m not advising anyone to do it. But I am surprised to see people on a pro 2A site calling for the death penalty for crime based on unconstitutional law.

Mr H · Aug 12, 2019

Occam said:
What I'm seeing is that his prohibited (lying about drug use) buddy procured the "body armor" and the drum mag for him so his parents wouldn't find out. The killer got his firearm through an FFL after an online purchase. Heard something in passing about his buddy helping him "mod" the rifle, but who knows. More to the point here, did his drug using buddy know that his Sanders/Warren-loving leftist Antifa-groupie friend was about to go and kill people?

This is correct, AFAIK.

3paul10 · Aug 12, 2019

Silverlode said:
I’m not advising anyone to do it. But I am surprised to see people on a pro 2A site calling for the death penalty for crime based on unconstitutional law.

ok, good......and I didn't agree with the "death penalty" thing either.....carry on.

KJackson · Aug 13, 2019

Occam said:
What I'm seeing is that his prohibited (lying about drug use) buddy procured the "body armor" and the drum mag for him so his parents wouldn't find out. The killer got his firearm through an FFL after an online purchase. Heard something in passing about his buddy helping him "mod" the rifle, but who knows.

From what I read, the "modding" was building it from a completed upper and a lower. Not sure if it was stripped or complete. Someone on the Daily Mail site made the comment that they were calling BS on that since guns come fully assembled. :sad20:

I didn't even bother to try and reply. From what I have been able to gather, the buddy lied on a 4473 to get a gun that was unrelated to the shooting.

rascal · Aug 13, 2019

Silverlode said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law. Unless he knew that the intended use was criminal, in which case he is an accomplice. I admittedly did not yet read the article, so if it states something of that nature I retract my disagreement.

Like it or not, my guess is that straw purchase is in an entirely different category and north of 90% of people would not agree that straw purchase laws are unconstitutional.
You have a right to your opinion but unless you are on the federal judiciary it doesn't count more or less than any of 340 million opinions in the US.

The facts present in the political arena are what matter. The factors that determine gun control should be the Constitution alone -- buy they are NOT going to be the Constitution alone. Democrat party executive appointed judges, and Democrat legislators are profoundly more likely to support draconian gun control and GOP judges and legislators are profoundly less likely to.

How many court cases, even amicus filings by "no compromise ever" claiming 2A groups begin with the assertion that "all gun control is unconstitutional?
Answer: none, not one.

And the main point on this aspect of this story is the gun control advocates are already spinning using the method(s) of acquisition, in this high profile crime to argue for more gun laws, they are already spinning it, when in fact the method(s) of purchase points to weaknesses and fallacies in their longstanding arguments. This story should hurt their arguments, but with a willing press abetting them, they will win the argument unless a cogent argument is made in response. And that matters.

Boats · Aug 13, 2019

Silverlode said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law.

Agree.

Pushrod · Aug 13, 2019

Silverlode said:
Who decides what is reasonable? If he conspired to commit murder, there are penalties for that. As a stand alone crime, straw purchase is illegitimate.

You are 100% correct Silverlode! This goes back to: if they are too dangerous to own a weapon, they shouldn't be free on the streets to do harm.

delaware_export · Aug 13, 2019

My read on the story is they are on him for the illegal drugs question of the 4473. He lied and checked no while using pot, daily, for and extended period of time. And he told the FBI.

I am not aware that giving mags, armor or uppers is illegal. No serialized parts.

.gov needs a live scapegoat, not a corpse to put in jail.

What I heard (on the radio news article) made the guy sound more like an idiot than an accomplice.

And several states and their Congress critters are now suggesting BGCs for parts and vests. Plays right into their narratives, don’t ya think?

Inigoes · Aug 13, 2019

delaware_export said:
My read on the story is they are on him for the illegal drugs question of the 4473. He lied and checked no while using pot, daily, for and extended period of time. And he told the FBI.

I am not aware that giving mags, armor or uppers is illegal. No serialized parts.

.gov needs a live scapegoat, not a corpse to put in jail.

What I heard (on the radio news article) made the guy sound more like an idiot than an accomplice.

And several states and their Congress critters are now suggesting BGCs for parts and vests. Plays right into their narratives, don’t ya think?

It's a surprise they didn't get him with possessing ammo as a prohibited persona also.

Body armor is already illegal for a prohibited person

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony that is—
(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or

(2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/931

Silverlode · Aug 13, 2019

rascal said:
Like it or not, my guess is that straw purchase is in an entirely different category and north of 90% of people would not agree that straw purchase laws are unconstitutional.
You have a right to your opinion but unless you are on the federal judiciary it doesn't count more or less than any of 340 million opinions in the US.

The facts present in the political arena are what matter. The factors that determine gun control should be the Constitution alone -- buy they are NOT going to be the Constitution alone. Democrat party executive appointed judges, and Democrat legislators are profoundly more likely to support draconian gun control and GOP judges and legislators are profoundly less likely to.

How many court cases, even amicus filings by "no compromise ever" claiming 2A groups begin with the assertion that "all gun control is unconstitutional?
Answer: none, not one.

And the main point on this aspect of this story is the gun control advocates are already spinning using the method(s) of acquisition, in this high profile crime to argue for more gun laws, they are already spinning it, when in fact the method(s) of purchase points to weaknesses and fallacies in their longstanding arguments. This story should hurt their arguments, but with a willing press abetting them, they will win the argument unless a cogent argument is made in response. And that matters.

Brother, it sounds like they have your head spinning trying to follow their shell game. I don't care what their rules are or how often they change them in the middle of the game. I'm not playing the game. You shouldn't either. It's how we ended up where we are. Shall not be infringed means I don't give a tin sh!t about any of the above. Especially what the opinion of the majority is where my God given rights are concerned. If you think it matters, you missed the whole point of this exercise.

delaware_export · Aug 13, 2019

it seems that prior to the arrest ?yesterday? he was not found guilty of anything. if this were the case, i am sure the MSM would have hit it heavily if he were.

it APPEARS they are charging him with the 4473 question about drugs, and no mention of prior DQing convictions. and maybe the pot/mushroom stuff he told the fbi about.

is a person retroactively prohibited without or prior to a conviction?

i am sure he'll be prosecuted now, and given the circumstances, they'll stop at nothing short of a felony conviction, even if not specifically for being involved in the shooting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dayton...dy-armor-100-round-magazine-today-2019-08-12/

Inigoes said:
It's a surprise they didn't get him with possessing ammo as a prohibited persona also.

Body armor is already illegal for a prohibited person

Dayton Shooter

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Head'n for the hills

Member

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Broken Member

Master Blaster

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics