Posted on 09/09/2019 6:18:28 AM PDT by marktwain
The Midland/Odessa Murderer may have used a homemade gun. He was a prohibited possessor under federal law. This offers one explanation for his firing at police officers during the traffic stop. As a prohibited possessor, in possession of a rifle, he would be subject to years in jail.
The Wall Street Journal reports that authorities are investigating a person who may have made the rifle and sold it to the murderer. If the person knew the murderer was prohibited from owning firearms, the sale would be illegal. From the wsj.com:
Law-enforcement officials said they have identified a person of interest they suspect of illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle used in Saturday’s mass shooting in West Texas.
Fox News reports the murderer had been ruled mentally unfit to possess a firearm. from foxnews.com:
The gunman who killed 7 and injured at least 22 others in a West Texas shooting rampage on Labor Day weekend before he was shot and killed by police was federally banned from owning or buying firearms after a court previously ruled he was mentally unfit to do so, authorities said.
The murderer applied to purchase a gun. He was denied.
“The background check was run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The NIC system did work. He applied to get a gun. He was denied a gun,” John Wester, a special agent for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said at a press conference Monday,
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
It would require the federal govt to relinquish power. The federal govt does not relinquish power.
what?
We already DO?
oh .... abortion.
“A better solution than NICS would be for the federal government to make available, on the Internet, and by other means, a database containing all people known to be prohibited from owning guns. All gun sellers could access it to determine if a sale would be legal.”
Doesn’t that mean anyone could access it for any reason?
Doesn’t that mean I could lose a chance at a good job, a loan, the company of a delightful person of another sex, because my name is the same as or similar to a person on the prohibited list (It is.)?
If it is specific enough that one person can’t be confused with another and anyone can access it for any reason, does that raise privacy concerns?
Well, I suppose if they can ambush a deer and call it hunting, magazines can be called clips.
I program those and full billet lowers and uppers for a buddy who owns a shop making them.
Also getting into barrels for high end users.
Pandora’s box is wide open on these now, no way to stop someone like me with a machine shop from building them if they choose to.
Just like bathtub gin, there will be a black market from criminals and someone is going to fill it.
What I find funny is the lower is actually the easier half to build, the real work and know-how is in making the upper. I always questioned why they didn’t make the harder of the two the one you had to make for your own use.
The quarter-inch gaspipe barrel and clothespin trigger were dead giveaways.
Lots of people are denied their Second Amendment rights because they have names similar to felons, now.
The information on the list would come from public records. Felony convictions and most other reasons are public records.
I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again: Exactly WHY did the shooter fail the earlier background check?
I know he was ruled “mentally unfit”, but there are no details.
“The idea is the system would have the ability to appeal in it, unlike the terrorist watch list. “
In order to appeal the result, I’ve got to know my name was checked. If I was denied a job, loan or date because of a mistaken result, I might not be told the reason for the denial. Of course, nothing is perfect.
Lathe and Mill Control coming soon from the Democrats.
With the current system, you cannot check to see if you are on it.
With the BIDS system, you can check yourself.
It’s in the original post:
was federally banned from owning or buying firearms after a court previously ruled he was mentally unfit to do so, authorities said.
If the person knew the murderer was prohibited from owning firearms, the sale would be illegal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I understand it, an unserialized gun built legally for private use may not be sold to another at all.
“With the current system, you cannot check to see if you are on it.”
But if I try to buy a firearm and fail the check, I’ll know.
“With the BIDS system, you can check yourself.”
There is that. And if the system pulls up several names the same as or similar to mine, I’ll probably know whether or not one of them is mine. Anyone else may or may not.
As I understand it, that is incorrect.
The gun may not be built for commercial sale.
Once it has become a privately owned firearm (the standard by the BATFE used to be one year of private ownership), it can be sold just like any other privately owned gun.
California passed a law saying you must apply for a state granted serial number.
As the person making the gun is *not* a licensed manufacturer, they have no duty to place a serial number on the gun, and no duty to report the serial number to the BATFE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.