Craigslist Killer indicted - bought hand gun in NH with stolen NY id

[dwarven1]

In this particular case, probably the notary took a jurat, that is, they gave the person appearing before them an oath to attest that the document is accurate. They asked them "Do you swear and affirm that the contents of this [name of document] signed by you are true and correct?”

You mean... he LIED??? NO!!! No one would do that... would they?

I pity the notary - s/he's probably not feeling too good right now - just being involved, however peripherally, in this mess.

The media and anyone else who thinks otherwise, I will politely ask you to go and open an umbrella in your ass.

Easy, old son... no one is accusing them of anything here. I've never been there, so I don't know the shop by experience, but if you notice, pretty much all of the comments here are of the "you have to be kidding me; they wouldn't do that sort of thing!" variety.

 

[vellnueve]

Yeah, you need to chill out.

If BATFE thought there was wrongdoing, State Line would have been closed weeks ago.

 

[mark056]

Regardless of whether State Line was in compliance or not (I believe on the basis of having done business with them in the past that they were compliant to the letter of the law), the events as they transpired are just another nail in coffin, so to speak, for gun owners.

I was not aware of the provision that allowed out-of-state college students the ability to purchase handguns in the state that they are attending school. It is not dissimilar from the ability of military personnel to buy handguns in states that they are not residents of but stationed in.

I suppose we will see another so-called "loophole" closed in the near future.

Mark056

 

[Bob P]

We're actually lucky Lautenberg started his Terror List Gun Buyer crap right now as that seems to be sucking up the majority of national anti-gun media attention. This might cruise by under the radar. None of the articles I've read have made too big a deal of his purchasing the gun on an out of state ID.

 

[Gonzo]

Regardless of whether State Line was in compliance or not (I believe on the basis of having done business with them in the past that they were compliant to the letter of the law), the events as they transpired are just another nail in coffin, so to speak, for gun owners.

I was not aware of the provision that allowed out-of-state college students the ability to purchase handguns in the state that they are attending school. It is not dissimilar from the ability of military personnel to buy handguns in states that they are not residents of but stationed in.

I suppose we will see another so-called "loophole" closed in the near future.

Mark056

I honestly don't see the hammer coming down on 2A issues over this guy. He broke so many laws they can't find a "magic cure" law that would have prevented this from happening (laws prevent crime, right? right?) and the media isn't focusing on how he procured the gun, other than the fact it was illegal.

MA might propose something like outlawing gamblers from medical school, but NH won't, not over this idiot.

 

[mark056]

I honestly don't see the hammer coming down on 2A issues over this guy. He broke so many laws they can't find a "magic cure" law that would have prevented this from happening (laws prevent crime, right? right?) and the media isn't focusing on how he procured the gun, other than the fact it was illegal.

MA might propose something like outlawing gamblers from medical school, but NH won't, not over this idiot.

I agree that the effect will not be immediate. What does concern me is not legislation at the state level, but rather an incident that will be used by the gun control people at the right time. Right now, and supposedly Nancy Pelosi and other gun grabbers have attested to this, the gun control people in DC are just waiting for the right opportunity, either another Luby's, or MacDonald's or maybe even a Columbine, that will rally the American people around stricter gun control laws. They are going to get the most bang for the buck and turn the "right" incident into the right sound bite. An incident like the Markof case, will be used as supporting evidence that even "existing gun laws, no matter how strict they might seem, are simply not enough." Kindly remember that we have those out there who would essentially ban all firearms. This, despite assurances to the contrary from the President, severe restrictions on the private ownership of firearms, I believe is a key agenda item of the Obama administration. It is a question of when not if. The reason that the media has not made such a big deal out of it right now, in my opinion, is that there are other aspects of the case that are more sensational (or for those of a more conspiratorial bent, perhaps the media have been advised to "back off" on the gun purchasing aspect "for now"...I am not saying that I necessarily buy into that idea, but I'll put it on the table to ponder), however I honestly believe that the time will come and all the pieces will fall into place and when placed in particular context with a certain slant, this current case will be used as a powerful and persuasive argument for the other side.

Mark056

 

[dwarven1]

Damn, Bro... you're fscking depressing lately. You're probably right, but you're still depressing.

I think I'll go bury [STRIKE]my head in the sand[/STRIKE] myself in work.

 

[Gonzo]

I agree that the effect will not be immediate. What does concern me is not legislation at the state level, but rather an incident that will be used by the gun control people at the right time. Right now, and supposedly Nancy Pelosi and other gun grabbers have attested to this, the gun control people in DC are just waiting for the right opportunity, either another Luby's, or MacDonald's or maybe even a Columbine, that will rally the American people around stricter gun control laws. They are going to get the most bang for the buck and turn the "right" incident into the right sound bite. An incident like the Markof case, will be used as supporting evidence that even "existing gun laws, no matter how strict they might seem, are simply not enough." Kindly remember that we have those out there who would essentially ban all firearms. This, despite assurances to the contrary from the President, severe restrictions on the private ownership of firearms, I believe is a key agenda item of the Obama administration. It is a question of when not if. The reason that the media has not made such a big deal out of it right now, in my opinion, is that there are other aspects of the case that are more sensational (or for those of a more conspiratorial bent, perhaps the media have been advised to "back off" on the gun purchasing aspect "for now"...I am not saying that I necessarily buy into that idea, but I'll put it on the table to ponder), however I honestly believe that the time will come and all the pieces will fall into place and when placed in particular context with a certain slant, this current case will be used as a powerful and persuasive argument for the other side.

Mark056

Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't think so. Look at the run on guns and ammo that's just now starting to slow just because a guy from the Chicago political machine got elected. Last estimate I saw placed the population at ~40% gun owners. You've got seasonal hunters, family heirlooms, security personnel, collectors, plinkers, etc. This country is not a city, able to be controlled easily. You're missing the redneck factor. They have been chipping away at the 2A as much as they can. They'll keep trying, but if they push a full on ban through they'll have created a political shitstorm that they'd never survive. The "Change" that was promised to make everybody love each other and pay our mortgages and put gas in our cars isn't showing up. They're losing their political clout by the minute. Their health care reform plan is floundering. The mob is already starting to swing back to the conservative side. I'm not doing the best job explaining this, but a politician's job is to get himself elected. 1/3 of the voters they'll never get. 1/3 is guaranteed. That center 1/3 is getting really upset and disappointed. Look at the Rasmussen polls. The New America under this liberal dream team is losing steam and they're only six months into it.

 

[drgrant]

I agree that the effect will not be immediate. What does concern me is not legislation at the state level, but rather an incident that will be used by the gun control people at the right time. Right now, and supposedly Nancy Pelosi and other gun grabbers have attested to this, the gun control people in DC are just waiting for the right opportunity, either another Luby's, or MacDonald's or maybe even a Columbine, that will rally the American people around stricter gun control laws.

Depends on where the "event" happens and the age of the victims, and the body count. All of these variables determine media exposure and
how much whining the antis can get away with. The bigger the disaster the more likely their whining is to be received.. but even that has limits.

Part of the reason that VT was such a big "flop" for the antis was because none of the locals really bought into the bullshit; VA is a pretty gun-friendly
state, and it's residents are less likely to blame the gun than anything else. If anything incidents in gun-friendly states are likely to cause
movement in the other direction, not calls for libtard politicos to "do something".

Most of the "events" that caused us political turmoil all happened in pure moonbat states. LIRR shooter, 2-3 incidents in CA (including the stockton schoolyard shooting, which basically was the singular event that pushed the 94 AWB over the edge). I'm sure McCarthy or whoever will be harping about that incident in NY that happened not that long ago.

The thing is, even people like her are starting to become politically marginalized. The swing votes do not want to play with gun control, at least not
at that level. I wouldn't be surprised at anything though in a place like MA, NY, NJ, IL, etc.... those states will continue to try to pass garbage gun
control, because they can get away with it.

They are going to get the most bang for the buck and turn the "right" incident into the right sound bite. An incident like the Markof case, will be used as supporting evidence that even "existing gun laws, no matter how strict they might seem, are simply not enough."

I doubt this guy will even show up as a blip on the radar. Once this guy goes to jail, the media won't care much anymore about him. Body count
is too low. There's not a lot of "harp and emo" media value on a few adults getting killed. On the other hand, if this lady had been pregnant, we'd be hearing about it for years.

9/11 kind of reset the bar on that quite a bit. I don't think our society will ever look at "death in bulk" again the same way because of it, at least not within the generations of folks that were old enough to witness it.

-Mike

 

[vellnueve]

I agree drgrant. State Line will get some shit for a few days or weeks, but they're still open, I assume BATFE has already been through their records, etc. As sad as it is to say, the fact that the victim was a prostitute is probably not going to motivate more extensive coverage, either.

 

[mark056]

Depends on where the "event" happens and the age of the victims, and the body count. All of these variables determine media exposure and
how much whining the antis can get away with. The bigger the disaster the more likely their whining is to be received.. but even that has limits.

Part of the reason that VT was such a big "flop" for the antis was because none of the locals really bought into the bullshit; VA is a pretty gun-friendly
state, and it's residents are less likely to blame the gun than anything else. If anything incidents in gun-friendly states are likely to cause
movement in the other direction, not calls for libtard politicos to "do something".

Most of the "events" that caused us political turmoil all happened in pure moonbat states. LIRR shooter, 2-3 incidents in CA (including the stockton schoolyard shooting, which basically was the singular event that pushed the 94 AWB over the edge). I'm sure McCarthy or whoever will be harping about that incident in NY that happened not that long ago.

The thing is, even people like her are starting to become politically marginalized. The swing votes do not want to play with gun control, at least not
at that level. I wouldn't be surprised at anything though in a place like MA, NY, NJ, IL, etc.... those states will continue to try to pass garbage gun
control, because they can get away with it.



I doubt this guy will even show up as a blip on the radar. Once this guy goes to jail, the media won't care much anymore about him. Body count
is too low. There's not a lot of "harp and emo" media value on a few adults getting killed. On the other hand, if this lady had been pregnant, we'd be hearing about it for years.

9/11 kind of reset the bar on that quite a bit. I don't think our society will ever look at "death in bulk" again the same way because of it, at least not within the generations of folks that were old enough to witness it.

-Mike

Mike,

I gather then, from your response that you don't see 2A rights being imperiled? If that is the case, then are you suggesting that we really don't have too much to worry about in the future? Granted, there will always be states like MA, IL and CA that will push the envelope on gun control laws, but overall, if I read you correctly, you are saying that we shouldn't be too concerned on the national level. An interesting perspective and certainly one not promulgated by the NRA. In reading their reports, literature etc., they appear to present a different view that's not as rosy.

What do you think about changes in the make-up in the Supreme Court and how this will impact on gun owners?

Mark056

 

[vellnueve]

What changes in the makeup of the USSC? They're replacing one ultra-lib with another.

 

[drgrant]

Mike,

I gather then, from your response that you don't see 2A rights being imperiled? If that is the case, then are you suggesting that we really don't have too much to worry about in the future?

IMO we are always at risk, although I'd say we're better off now than we have been in years, with the exception of Obama. Ironically though I think we've responded pretty well to him- by scaring the shit out of him by buying a shitload of guns and ammo. A lot of these people buying guns are also NEW gun owners. More armed americans = a good thing. Further, I don't think congress has the balls right now to touch gun control, but that all could change if some seats are lost to pure moonbats, but we're "safe" legislatively at least for a little while.

The only time I ever think we could truly "rest" is if this starts happening...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFVjg79_iM
(replace the fred phelps supporters with brady bunch types)

We're a long way from that, unfortunately. We need to keep pouring on the napalm.

My point really wasn't about that, but rather that the antis are going to have a harder time capitalizing on tragedy like they used to, especially if the
incident in question doesn't have certain kinds of media shock value attached to it. A generic criminal/predator killing one or two "massage therapists" doesn't exactly make a "cause celebre" for them.

I'm not suggesting it won't/cannot happen, but the antis mariachi band pummeling on the gun banning drum beat is now starting to get lost in
the noise, as it were. Something significant/extraordinary is going to have to happen before they will be able to get the same mileage they used to out of these kinds of things. A lot of people are not buying into their crap anymore, especially folks in gun-friendly states.

An interesting perspective and certainly one not promulgated by the NRA. In reading their reports, literature etc., they appear to present a different view that's not as rosy.

The NRA is always going to say the sky is falling, and I can't say that I blame them for it. They need to resort to anything and everything to
bring attention to the issues.

What do you think about changes in the make-up in the Supreme Court and how this will impact on gun owners?

Mark056

There are no "functional " changes in SCOTUS. Sotomayor will replace a hard-core anti, so the balance isn't really any different than it was in the recent past.

There was some concern for awhile with Roberts because of his seizures, but I haven't heard anything more recently. If he had to leave for some
reason, that would be a gigantic problem for us.

-Mike

 

[mark056]

What changes in the makeup of the USSC? They're replacing one ultra-lib with another.

I think the issue here is that there are several other justices that could decide to retire at anytime and Obama in the course of the next 31/2 years could make one or two more appointments. That is very much a possibility and was a major talking point during the election campaign. From another perspective, if Obama serves two terms (it is still very premature to say that he won't), then it is almost a given that he will make additional appointments to the USSC.

Mark056

 

[seanc]

Anyone want to step up and claim this guy can be "redeemed?"

Ok, I will.. I say he could be redeemed..
I would sentence him to sitting in a chair facing the wall with a dunce cap on contemplating the error of his ways for around half an hour.

As long as that chair is Old Sparky (set to high), I'd be fine with that and consider him fit to be released back into society..

How's that?
Work for you??

 

[cekim]

As long as that chair is Old Sparky (set to high), I'd be fine with that and consider him fit to be released back into society..

How's that?
Work for you??

You are correct... Sparky would fix him right up... My bad...

 

[Doc Holiday]

I am sorry if I came across as if I had accused anyone in particular, or made them feel that way here. I would just hate to see a newbie get the wrong impression, because the news and media could still influence them to some degree. I appologize to everyone if you felt I pointing the finger at you, I was pointing my middle finger to the pretty clouds in the sky from which I think the media gets their ideas, better known as thin air. Please accept my apology.

 

[drgrant]

Is it possible he went to an FFL for a transfer?

Perhapts he met a person off gunbroker or something who didnt know the rules/laws?

Doubt it. This was, at least on it's front, likely a "by the book" transfer- the criminal just committed fraud against the gun shop in order to obtain the firearm. The gun shop likely had no way of knowing whether or not the docs given to them were authentic or not. This is an ongoing problem
with NICS, of sorts.... however, there is no real way to address it without seriously infringing on people's liberties in the process.

-Mike

 

[Titan]

I think the issue here is that there are several other justices that could decide to retire at anytime and Obama in the course of the next 31/2 years could make one or two more appointments. That is very much a possibility and was a major talking point during the election campaign. From another perspective, if Obama serves two terms (it is still very premature to say that he won't), then it is almost a given that he will make additional appointments to the USSC.

Mark056

Obama's also replacing a guy who was put on the court as a presumed Conservative by Bush 41. He turned out to be a stealth liberal.

Sotomayor is being appointed as an extreme liberal at the height of Obama's opportunity to leverage his popularity.

I know it's still only one vote and a liberal vote is a liberal vote, but folks shouldn't underestimate the capacity of a liberal zealot to influence the court, versus a liberal 'bookworm'.

.

 

[cekim]

Sotomayor is being appointed as an extreme liberal at the height of Obama's opportunity to leverage his popularity.

That she is a liberal is to be expected, what I find troubling is that she's just not that bright... [sad2] (not a racist or sexist comment in any way, just a reflection of what those who have worked with her, and practiced in front of her have observed objectively). Her legal logic is shallow and often incorrect and her practice as a judge is sloppy...

I guess in this context "smart liberals" isn't a good thing - it took a lot of thought to butcher history, reality and precedence to come up with the dissent from Heller...

A less eloquent liberal might have had even more trouble making the case...