How Did the Boulder, Colorado Gunman Obtain His Firearm?

Anytime a mass shooting takes place, Democrats and members of the mainstream media make assumptions about why the gunman carried out the attack and how gun control proposals could have prevented the tragedy. The same thing happened following last week's attack in Boulder, Colorado. As the scene was unfolding, speculation took place and instant calls for anti-Second Amendment legislation were imminent.

One of the biggest claims is that "universal background checks" or "enhanced background checks" could have prevented the gunman from obtaining his firearm. This is flat-out false.

Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa purchased his Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before he carried out the attack at the Kings Soopers store in Boulder. He made the purchase at the Eagles Nest Armory in Arvada, Colorado, Reuters reported.

Alissa purchased his firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), meaning he purchased the firearm legally. He went to a "gun dealer," filled out a 4473 form – the form that's used to process a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) – underwent a background check, he passed, and the sale proceeded.

Democrats – including President Joe Biden – are pushing for the Senate to pass H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, a pair of bills that would expand background checks, meaning a seller would have to undergo a background check, even for private sales.

There are three problems with these calls though: the first is that Colorado has universal background checks. If a person sells their firearm privately, he or she must meet the buyer at an FFL, where the buyer has to fill out the 4473 form and undergo the background check process. Even if Alissa purchased the firearm from a private party (which he didn't), he would still have to go to an FFL and have a background check run. The state has had this law in place since March of 2013, following the attacks at Sandy Hook.

The second issue: Alissa didn't have any felony convictions. He had a misdemeanor assault charge on his record for hitting another student when he was a senior in high school, back in 2018. In order to be denied for firearm purchases, a felony conviction has to be on a person's record. This was a legal transaction. He was not deemed a prohibited possessor at the time of purchase.

The third problem: the gunman was on the FBI's watch list before the shooting. Did the agency have information that showed he was a threat? Did they have information about a potential attack? Was this another example of the FBI dropping the ball?

Universal background checks sound great on paper, especially to those who are ignorant about firearm policies and legislation, but they do very little to curb "gun violence." The Boulder shooting is the latest example of where those gun control measures – which proponents guarantee would prevent mass carnage – have failed.

AWR Hawkins from Breitbart listed the other attacks where other gunmen legally obtained through firearms (through background checks conducted at FFLs):

Atlanta-area attacker (March 16, 2021)
Parkland high school attacker (February 14, 2018)
Texas church attacker (November 5, 2017)
Las Vegas attacker (October 1, 2017)
Alexandria attacker (June 14, 2017))
Orlando attacker (June 12, 2016)
UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016))
San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015)
Colorado Springs attacker (October 31, 2015)
Umpqua Community College attacker (October 1, 2015)
Alison Parker’s attacker (August 26, 2015)
Lafayette movie theater attacker (July 23, 2015)
Chattanooga attacker (July 16, 2015)
Alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attacker (Jun 17, 2015)
Muhammad Carton Contest attackers (May 3, 2014)
Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015)
Santa Barbara attacker (May 23, 2014)
Fort Hood attacker (April 2, 2014)
Arapahoe High School attacker (December 13, 2013)
D.C. Navy Yard attacker (September 16, 2013)
Aurora movie theater attacker (July 20, 2012)
Gabby Giffords’ attacker (January 8, 2011)
Fort Hood attacker (November 5, 2009)
Northern Illinois University attacker (February 14, 2008)
Virginia Tech attacker (April 16, 2007).

What these bills really do is to create a firearms registry. It would mean the government would know exactly who owns what guns moving forward, something Second Amendment supporters believe could lead to firearm confiscation. It also penalizes private party transfers, which typically take place between family and friends, and already regulated. Further legislation would be redundant.

I don’t think an ideological test would pass muster, and that’s a good thing.

I wonder how much latitude an FFL holder has in denying a sale that would pass on the merits of passing a background check. One of my dealers once said, to the individual conducting the background check, that he never sold to anyone not born in the USA.

I was speaking specifically to the poster calling himself Captainpaintball about denying someone a gun purchase because their last name sounded like other terrorists.

How would you like it if a gun store denied you a purchase because of your name?

Yeah, that part was more for going hot.

I walked into an LGS years ago, and the counter girl was on the phone to the cops. A guy wearing a hat with a marijuana leaf on it had just left He’ was in there looking at guns, talking about shooting the police Chief in the neighboring town for taking away his weed. I went out and followed him and talked the cops onto his location.

It’s all good when we are talking about Islamonazis and there posts.

There is a second amendment issue here.

Do you want someone denying you a firearm purchase based on your social media posts?

What if you were a certain race, and the guy behind the counter hated that race and denied or delayed YOUR purchase?

Don’t you get it when you are put in there place?

What if you have some hobby or interest that someone does not like for some reason, and that person owns your local gun store?

I find it hard to believe that if that guy walked into a my gun store, I would not think something is wrong with him. I would go out of my way not to sell him a weapon.I’d take my time, help other customers... I would also look up his name on the internet during the sale. It takes no more than 2-3 minutes. If he starts getting impatient, squirrelly, rude...he can go f—k off. To tell you the truth, his family shouldn’t have been admitted into this country. And their incompetence and stupidity is grounds for deportation, or incarceration (or some sort of punishment)

“What if you were a certain race, and the guy behind the counter hated that race and denied or delayed YOUR purchase?”

I have been discriminated against for being white, more than once. But I’d rather that than have the government telling people whom they must and cannot sell to.

I have been been spit on and had weapons pulled on me for being white. Also, I do not want the fedgov deciding who should get guns.

It seemed like you were saying the guy behind the counter could delay the gun purchase by looking up someone’s info on a laptop.

Not if he is sexist or racist or denying someone their 2nd Amendment rights on a false pretense.

How would you like being denied a gun purchase if you lived in a small town with one gun shop hours away from a big city and really needed a firearm for protection?

That argument is used by libs for virtually everything g they push. It does have merit but I am not a libertarian and do draw the line somewhere. If I had say,any caught and convicted terrorist should have the entire holdings of the entire immediate family confiscated and then deported,right now and permanently. Certain individuals do need profiling. Terrorists caught in the act should be shot in the street.two subjects 2A and terrorism.

“Not if he is sexist or racist”

So if someone has a different opinion on those matters, his private property is forfeit?

“or denying someone their 2nd Amendment rights on a false pretense.”

The Constitution enumerates our human right to keep and bear arms, but it does not empower us to force anyone to supply us with arms.

“How would you like being denied a gun purchase if you lived in a small town with one gun shop hours away from a big city and really needed a firearm for protection?”

Why does the shop owner care how I like it? Since when does poor planning on my part constitute an obligation to sell me a gun on his part? That gun is his own private property.

His shop, his property, his decision to make. To the extent that our laws interfere with that, our laws are horsey poopy.

Those who are so severely afflicted with leftardation that they think “sexism” and “racism” are excuses for deprivation of human rights should never be in any position of authority.

I agree with your points, however; a business owner denying someone service for arbitrary reasons opens oneself to lawsuits.

Surely you can imagine the crapstorm if a protected minority was denied a firearm sale, found out it was because of their status, and got libtard ACLU lawyers involved.

Only racial profiling would’ve stopped the attack, and only if the bastard had been monitored. Would the liberals have wanted that? Hmmmm?

How would racial profiling have stopped the attack? The murderer is white.

I think ideological profiling is what you mean.

“a business owner denying someone service for arbitrary reasons opens oneself to lawsuits.”

Lex mala, lex nulla.

“Surely you can imagine the crapstorm if a protected minority was denied a firearm sale, found out it was because of their status, and got libtard ACLU lawyers involved.”

The continued existence of the ACLU is a great disgrace to every American.

Personally,, I think the FBI knew about the shooter from his tweets and let him go ahead anyway, so they had another platform to push for gun control

Bank on it! If he was anti Biden and said so ... they’d jump on him so fast it would make your head spin!

No one will ever change my mind about that

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.