Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

sir pball

(4,948 posts)

7. I know, and I agree he shouldn't have been able to.

Reply to Robb (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 09:59 AM

Sep 2013

I also think he shouldn't have been able to buy privately, either.

Honestly, I don't think simply blocking him from a checked sale would have made much difference, maybe slowed him down by a day at the most, but universal dealer transfers are beyond the scope of this thread. As is the mostly-unrelated assertion by the parent poster that LE isn't obligated to "back up" a restraining order - seemed to be an effort to distract from the issue at hand.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Greensboro shooting victim knew estranged husband had a rifle [View all] Robb Sep 2013 OP

this is why the NRA supports re-arming violent felons sigmasix Sep 2013 #1

Welcome to the gun-infested NRA wet-dream culture. madinmaryland Sep 2013 #2

The NRA and billh58 Sep 2013 #3

Even if she were able to get an order of protection, it is pretty meaningless Squinch Sep 2013 #4

Well, it would have stopped him from buying from an FFL, not that that would have mattered. sir pball Sep 2013 #5

He went through the system to buy the gun. Robb Sep 2013 #6

I know, and I agree he shouldn't have been able to. sir pball Sep 2013 #7

But do you see what my point is in this? We are pretty much guaranteeing him a gun, Squinch Sep 2013 #8