Skip to comments.Boston Marathon Bombers Broke Gun Laws to Acquire Weapons
Posted on 04/22/2013 10:20:08 AM PDT by NoLibZone
Less than a week after the push by Democrats push for more gun control went down in flames in the Senate, Reuters is reporting the suspected Boston Marathon bombers ignored gun laws that are already on the books in possessing the firearms they used in shootouts with the police.
According to Reuters, "The two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, who police say engaged in a gun battle early Friday after a frenzied manhunt, were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived."
This means the handguns and "at least one rifle" the brothers had with them were acquired and possessed in ways that broke laws already in existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Her only concern is that her constituents, the criminals that make uo the DNC base, be well armed.
Well, if they got them from an FFL, the older one had to lie on question 12i.
Obviously we must immediately repeal the Second Amendment. It's the only solution.
Well just for that we’ll make MORE LAWS for them to break next time!
As with all other issues, the collectivists cannot and will not intake any logic that doesn’t match their world view. The facts of the Boston bombers are of no concern to them.
If they are Holder Fast and Furious guns we will never be told.
Did they have the correct ATFE licenses to manufacture, transport, and detonate an explosive device?
*GASP* You mean....someone.....someone actually broke the law???????????????????
Don’t give Eric Holder any ideas. I wouldnt put it past Holder to lean on NFA division to come up with a Type 10 FFL/Class 02 SOT for the brothers using the same crappy forgery as Obummers BC.
Since the O administration has stated the suspect #2 is a citizen and will not be tried in Military courts, can we now call him what he is: a traitor. This traitor has committed treason. People should hang for treasonous acts.
proving again crimnals don’t care what laws are on the books, they’re CRIMINALS.
INTENT matters. it makes all the difference.
bet they don’t charge kid with breaking the gun laws, they will get dropped in plea bargaining.
A few nut jobs use a gun and the Dems demand guns be banned.
A few nut job Muslems mass murder and the Dems will demand Muslems be banned.
Bombs need be registered as well as bomb owners.
Or maybe even bombs need be banned?
All criminals obey the law.
After all, the Govt banned illegal drugs and so now where are illegal drugs to be had?
So bans clearly work.
Criminals and terrorists don’t mind breaking laws, so the only people inconvenienced by liberal gun “control” laws are decent Americans? Who would have guessed?
Well someone should call the police and have those ruffians arrested. If people get away with brazenly flaunting the rules like this ... why anarchy surely must follow.
SEE! WE NEED MORE AND BETTER LAWS! /s
Any info on how they got the guns?
the pre-scripted media meme says:
“gun show loophole”
The Lefty gun grabbers will not listen to the criminals get guns argumant even if it smacks them in the face. When the Tsarnaevs had weapons that were acquired illegally, the media goes mum. They dont want the law abiding gun owner thinking his compliance does no good.
This is awesome and really made me laugh. Thanks.
What guns did they have? Hand guns and a rifle is pretty broad. Where the guns recovered ?
So bans clearly work.
Liberaltarian drug-pusher! </sarcasm>
The 2nd one—loved it! esp. the kittie!
Anyone notice there seems to be a news blackout on the firearms they used.
Normally the police will give a photo op, show the weapons and call for more gun control.
I’m surprised they haven’t called on the SENATE to revote on the AW ban.
According to the Constitution, which is the sole document which defines this crime, and the *only* crime so described in said document, "Treason shall consist of waging war against these United States..." I respectfully submit that the actions of the defendant were in fact waging war against these United States.
QED, you are correct. As to hanging, the Constitution does not specify a prescribed manner, but does clearly authorize a penalty of death upon conviction...