Gun Used in Texas Shooting Was Illegally Manufactured and Sold: REPORT
Source: National Review
Gun Used in Texas Shooting Was Illegally Manufactured and Sold: REPORT
By Jack Crowe
September 5, 2019 5:19 PM
Authorities believe the gun used in the drive-by shooting in Midland and Odessa, Texas this past weekend was illegally manufactured and sold by a Lubbock, Texas man, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is currently investigating a man who they believe illegally manufactured and sold the AR-15-style rifle that Seth Ator used to kill seven people and injure 22 more on Saturday, before he was shot and killed by police.
Ator, 36, had previously attempted to purchase a gun from a licensed seller in January 2014, but failed the requisite background check because hed been declared mentally unfit by a local court. A nationwide criminal-background check identified the court order and prevented the purchase, according to local authorities.
If Ator did in fact purchase the weapon through a private transaction, its seller was under no obligation to conduct a background check, but could be held criminally liable if evidence emerges that he knew his prospective customer came to him due to a previous background-check failure.
Read more: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/gun-used-in-texas-shooting-illegally-manufactured-sold-report/
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,817 posts)Legal or illegal. That's not important. It's the gun, pure and simple. If people didn't have guns they couldn't shoot people. I know, a totally bizarre concept.
Take away the guns, reduce the shootings. It shouldn't be very hard to understand.
riversedge
(70,093 posts)B Stieg
(2,410 posts)it worked (the assault weapons ban 1994-2004)!!!
This ain't rocket science. Fewer guns = fewer gun deaths.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,730 posts)When they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Bunch of whackos the Wayne LaPierres of this world are.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)yet also claim blue lives matter
Many police chiefs across America support better gun control laws.
Response to B Stieg (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2019, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352But while the stats are the stats and definitions are just starting points, the nature of mass shootings was very different as a result of the ban.
"One thing is clear: Assault weapons like those once restricted by the ban were used in the most memorable events that have defined the current era of random massacre, including at Sandy Hook in 2012, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 and this month in Texas and Ohio.
They are the emblem of the nation's soul sickness over these tragedies."
If you arguing this right-wing talking point, why are you here? (looks Like he left UCAL professor)
New "stats" btw
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-of-both-parties-overwhelmingly-support-red-flag-laws-expanded-gun-background-checks-washington-post-abc-news-poll-finds/2019/09/08/97208916-ca75-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html
Response to B Stieg (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)Exactly. That's why the prohibition needed/needs to be stronger.
The key is to ban semi-automatic weapons, regardless of facile sights, add-ons or hard points.
And, Mr. Stats, don't forget Darryl Huff!
However, why are these weapons needed, in your opinion?
Or do you like mass casualty events?
NickB79
(19,224 posts)And Heller's ruling in the USSC specifically stated citizens have a right to own handguns in common use for home and personal defense. And tens of millions of Democratic and Independent voters own such guns.
Beyond that roadblock, are you aware of pump-action rifles and shotguns that emulate AR's and AK's? Virtually the same rate of fire, same cartridges used, same detachable magazines. All exempt from assault weapon bans.
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)ANYTHING that creates mass casualties with one or multiple trigger pull needs to be BANNED.
So, no, you can still have your pistols for home defense (although Heller needs review), just no semi's there either.
YOU don't need those weapons for home defense or for hunting...
And yes, as a librul I've shot most, including Ak's and M-16's.
NickB79
(19,224 posts)We're currently fighting to ban features found on a few percent of the scariest guns (not even the actual guns themselves, since you can still buy featureless, legal AR's and AK's in places like California and New York); you're advocating banning around 75% of all guns owned in America if you're planning on lumping semiauto handguns and pump-action guns in there.
The Democratic Party will never win any state in the Midwest again when you grab everyone's hunting shotguns.
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)Instead, look at the polling...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
NickB79
(19,224 posts)71% are against a ban on handguns, and the only mention I found of banned semiauto weapons was in regard to assault rifles. And nothing about your idea to ban pump-action guns like the vast majority of hunting shotguns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You were saying?
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)But be very careful cleaning yours.
BTW https://www.npr.org/2019/08/10/749792493/americans-largely-support-gun-restrictions-to-do-something-about-gun-violence
hack89
(39,171 posts)Look at past 20 years or so. Support for gun control oscillates within a constant band around 50% plus or minus 10 %. We have been here before and nothing changed. There has been no sea change in public attitudes so nothing will really change.
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)You really want to make this much of an argument based on stats?
You do realize that every civilian gun death is unnecessary?
Or do you want to ignore events like Sandy Hook and the almost uncountable numbers of mass casualty events are good!
And things will change.
hack89
(39,171 posts)So you are for banning the vast majority of handguns. Kind of splitting hairs there, arent you?
paleotn
(17,884 posts)Not that long ago they were revolvers. Mass ownership of semi-auto handguns is a relatively new phenomenon. But I guess innocent people simply have to die so others can own them. Nice.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Once the police shifted from revolvers so did the public.
You realize in that time we cut our gun murder and man slaughter rates in half?
melm00se
(4,986 posts)like others in this thread feed the "The left wants to ban guns" meme.
And at one time black people were considered property, as were wives. Legal precedent changes as the world changes. The lives of innocent people demands that it does.
sir pball
(4,737 posts)A lever action, or pump action, is just as fast firing as a semiautomatic. There's a couple of models of pump action ARs already, and one or two detachable magazine leverguns, so ban semiautos and that market will absolutely take off.
Ban all removable magazines over 5 rounds, be they for semiauto, lever, pump, bolt, single-shot, whatever - if the ammo goes in a separate, easily swappable container, make it illegal.
NickB79
(19,224 posts)I've advocated in other threads that a ban on high-capacity magazines is much more doable than a gun ban.
Canada does 5, New York 7, and California 10 rounds.
sir pball
(4,737 posts)An actress, not even a gunsane, shoots both a pump-action and lever-action very fast. Add easily replaceable magazines in and it's just about as devastating as a semiauto.
Also, the music is awesome. As is the show.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...Magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use in a semiautomatic rifle are limited to five cartridges. However, magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use in a rifle other than a semiautomatic or automatic rifle, do not have a regulated capacity. Magazines that are designed or manufactured for use in both semiautomatic rifles and other (non-semiautomatic) rifles are subject to the semiautomatic rifle limit of five cartridges.
NickB79
(19,224 posts)I see that rimfire magazines are 10, but your link says 5 rounds is in fact the limit for semiauto centerfire if the magazine is removable.
sl8
(13,679 posts)Initially, the SAFE Act prohibited loading more than 7 rounds in the magazine, with exceptions, but, last I heard, the courts shot down that part of the Act.
Appeals court upholds SAFE Act but rules against seven-bullet limit
https://buffalonews.com/2015/10/19/appeals-court-upholds-safe-act-but-rules-against-seven-bullet-limit/
Not sure if there have been more recent developments.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)B Stieg
(2,410 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)once manufacturers made the cosmetic changes the law demanded, they went on selling rifles. The AR 15 was banned by name so Colt made the necessary changes and sold it as the Colt Sportsman.
The rifle Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook was legal to sell and own under the 94 AWB. It was also legal under CT's even stricter AWB - it was not legally an assault weapon.
LittleBunny
(22 posts)What it did do, however, was turn the AR-15 into the most popular firearm in the United States.
mauserk98
(8 posts)I didn't own an ar-15 platform rifle. I did buy one in response to the ban. The fastest way to get people to want/buy something is to tell them they can't have it.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)After all, some sick bastards want to engage in those pursuits, and those laws are telling them they can't do it.
Helpful hint: Better choose another Username. Bolt action rifles like the K98 aren't very popular amongst the small number of pro-gun types here at DU. Go for something snappy, like "100RoundMagazine." You're welcome.
Judi Lynn
(160,452 posts)Primitive, shabby, stupid people. They aren't people decent people would want to know, or see anywhere.
Their guns, apparently give them the feeling of importance they would never get any other way. Totally ignorant, and fear-driven.
What would they do without their guns?
They'd have to act like honest citizens.
Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)The whole thing is childish .
paleotn
(17,884 posts)Others simply have issues with their manhood.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)paleotn
(17,884 posts)over a significant number of years. Many and Others doesn't mean all, by the way. Touchy much?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Trick, the implication is clear so dont bother to pretend otherwise. For whatever its worth, this particular version was a favorite of the infamous Iverglas. Transparent as she eventually admitted.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Both my wife and myself are educated professionals. You really dont personally know any real gun owners do you?
oldsoftie
(12,492 posts)If we could start over and have NO guns, like so many other countries, things would be different. We cant. Cats outta the bag.
Easier to try to get rid of high capacity magazines.
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)Chances of that? 0
Why?
Too much $ in it, and greedy dipshits do dipshitty things and act entitled to be dipshits?
Starts at the top....
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)only the illegal guns will remain. Yes, they'll be damned expensive, but not unobtainable.
Response to PSPS (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jmowreader
(50,533 posts)The person in question transferred one of his homemade guns to another person, so according to the BATF he's a gun manufacturer and needs all the paperwork.
Response to jmowreader (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to jmowreader (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Thank you.
Doug.Goodall
(1,241 posts)House of Roberts
(5,167 posts)This weapon was an AR-15, assembled from individually obtained components.
gay texan
(2,435 posts)And its specific to an AR-15 and its variants.
The main piece of the AR-15 is the lower unit and it usually contains a serial number. It can be made of aluminum or high grade plastic.
In order to get around the BATF laws, you simply purchase an unfinished lower unit for $100 to $200 bucks. The hole for the trigger and the clip are solid and need to be machined. It's not "technically" a gun. Therefore, anyone can buy it as long as you have the cash.
You would think this is a difficult thing to do, but it isnt. You simply buy a jig that fits over the unfinished lower unit and with a drill and a dremel it's pretty much finished.
You then go online and purchase everything else you need ( barrel mechanics and furniture) and presto, you have a fully functional AR-15 that the BATF has no idea exists. Hence, the "ghost" moniker.
If this scares you, it should. This happens daily. It's a bunch of grey area bullshit that's being exploited.
patphil
(6,150 posts)It shows how inadequate a background check is.
Anyone can buy the separate components and make the gun.
underpants
(182,632 posts)Thanks.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)(Or there was) of a guy who made an AK-47 out of a garden shovel.
All it takes is a modicum of mechanical ability to make a weapon. It's not hard. They are made all day long in Afghanistan and Africa with equipment and resources that are a fraction of what is available in the USA.
There's really no way to stop it.
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)You swear to us that you are 18+ if you click here to ENTER!
Whose that stop?
Yeah, thought so.
gay texan
(2,435 posts)But it's crazier than that.
The outfits that manufacture this bullshit KNOW damn well and good what they are doing. But they dont care because they feel they are "sticking it to the libs"
It's really that fucking stupid, no joke....
They honestly don't give a fuck because they think that the BATF is this all knowing, all seeing entity that is just poised and ready to come and take away all of the guns from those proper, white, god fearing patriots. Their logic is that an untraceable gun, means that you have a wildly successful chance of defending yourself from the great government intrusion that's quite sure to happen once Hillary, Pelosi, and Soros get their act together.
Seriously, i'm not making this up. That's their thought process...
sir pball
(4,737 posts)Any gun you manufacture at home is exempt; the BATF rule is that as long as you do at least 20% of the work yourself, you're fine.
It's just that nobody really wants to build a bolt-action rifle themselves (and I suspect an 80% bolt-action receiver would be hard to finish, but I digress) - the only folk who want unserialized guns are the same kind of folk that want multiple ARs.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)we need stronger enforcement to get rid of gun danger to our children. We need high cost gun insurance and yearly inspection by the police to make sure they are correctly stored and sold only to checked customers. If a guy has fewer guns than last year, where is the receipt and background check on the buyer?
sarisataka
(18,501 posts)And priced accordingly.
I practice what I preach and have firearms insurance; I wish all my insurance cost as little as that does.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)Apparently the police are just not busy enough, so making them go see and inspect 300 millions guns and their owners every year will be a good use of their time.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)To apply these news laws fairly and without prejudice to people of color?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'll repeat something I posted at DU back in 2010:
The better-off could afford what they want, while those people would be limited in what they could afford for self-defense.
And since there is no demonstrable link on the number of firearms someone owns and their likelihood in doing something criminal
(if you are law-abiding while owning one gun, chances are you'd still be law abiding if you owned several dozen-
as many collectors do), this is purely a class-based attempt to disarm the working poor no matter the fine words it
comes wrapped in.
and
2. It would be racist, as unfortunately in this country, skin color is a rough guide to income levels.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)mitch96
(13,872 posts)see post #23
ripcord
(5,284 posts)Any competent machinist has the skills and many have the equipment, I could do it without much problem but prefer to crank out parts for high power rocketry.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)Thanks for the inspiring remarks.
ripcord
(5,284 posts)Also no license is needed for individuals to manufacture their own firearms.
paleotn
(17,884 posts)Because in my mind, manufacture of the other should land you in jail for a very very long time. A far greater danger to society than pot.
sir pball
(4,737 posts)It is trivial to build a single-shot firearm, it's basically a pipe.
Building a reliable, functional semiauto is a lot harder.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)This is why we should make it harder to get, not easier. Responsible mentally fit people will still be able to pass the background checks, so we need to close the private sale loophole. If people want to make guns, they can sell it through a licensed dealer who runs a nation-wide background check first. Same with gun shows, do the background checks ahead of time before the show, like when people register or buy tickets. It can be similar to TSA precheck for flights.
NickB79
(19,224 posts)If the ATF were properly funded, he would have been arrested for that alone.
Instead, we currently do nothing and let them walk free because the ATF has been gutted over the years.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,477 posts)What makes manufacturing a gun from an 80% lower illegal?
* For the most part, nothing. You can buy an 80% lower through the mail or online and have it delivered. You can finish it (making a firearm according to the law) and keep it for personal use. In supposedly nearly "gun free" Australia, gangs are manufacturing full auto assault rifle and machine pistols. These designs are easily within the skill of typical machinists.
* What is illegal is to then sell the gun without having a serial number engraved and recorded.
* What can make the manufacture illegal is where your intent or demonstrated history is to manufacturing and transfering the firearms to others.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
madville
(7,404 posts)Because they are readily available legally. It will be like any other prohibition, it will create a black market and business opportunity just like drug and alcohol prohibitions have done. Instead of money flowing to gun manufacturers it would then flow to the mob and the cartels who would set up manufacturing operations since gun manufacturing is basically just a small machine shop.
With automated CNC machining these days you don't even need highly skilled machinists either and high capacity magazines molding or 3D printing is easier than ever.
Since the gun may have been illegally manufactured and sold the background check argument is moot if they were already commiting felonies, one more wouldn't matter.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)Maxheader
(4,370 posts)That's why they all need to be rounded up and confiscated..All the gun sellers should have records of purchases..start there..Homemade assault weapons would stick out like a sore thumb...
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2019, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)
you really think the federal government is going to mobilize to seize all these guns? That's some pretty magical thinking there.
How quickly do you think red states and cities will declare themselves 2A sanctuaries and refuse to comply?
Maxheader
(4,370 posts)comments here?
hack89
(39,171 posts)there are some that are deadly serious about seizing all guns.
It is frustrating because there are actual solutions that could be implemented - I find wishing comments just muddy the water because they act more like litmus tests on guns in general instead of useful contributions to a ongoing conversation. They just generate more hate and discontent.
Maxheader
(4,370 posts)Multi mag weapons...The rest need registering...the arm of the law needs a quarter of the defense budge to hire personel to maintain a new computer system with EVERY owner of firearms in its data base..
One of the findings of the brady gun bill report was that even if a proper system was in place to keep track of guns it was way short of staffing support..As far as enforcing this...use the national guard..some of them probably have mideast combat experience...Might come in handy for the "problems" that come up..
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2019, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)
Dems stand for individual freedoms. I don't want to live in a surveillance state. I don't trust police like you do.
maxsolomon
(33,252 posts)And then some.