Where did the shooter get his guns? Update: an answer? Update: Killer ID’d as Seung Hui Cho
posted at 11:48 pm on April 16, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If the reports are accurate, we have a 24-year-old Chinese national in the US on a student visa as the VTech shooter. I don’t know a great deal about the process for student visa holders to obtain firearms, but I have a friend who does know quite a bit about it. So I’ll defer to an email he just sent me.
You can obtain a firearm if you are a resident alien and present proof of residency 90 days prior to a purchase. Usually a utility bill for 3 months prior to the day the RA attempts to purchase the firearm bill must match your state DL or ID address. The RA also must must fill out 4473 form and pass a background check. But on a student VISA? No way! Those guns had to be stolen or he fooled the system some how!
He sent a link to the ATF’s write-up on the Brady Law, which states:
As you may be aware, Section 121 of Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 1999, amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit, with certain exceptions, the transfer to and possession of firearms by aliens admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. This definition includes, in large part, persons traveling temporarily in the United States for business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain a residence abroad, and certain foreign workers. Therefore, you, as a Federal firearms licensee, are prohibited from transferring firearms to aliens that fall within this category.
The site lists exceptions, none of which appear to apply to the as of yet unnamed mass murderer. So it would seem that the gunman obtained his weapons illegally, either by gaming the system or by stealing them.
Now, some are likely to react to this post by scolding me for highlighting a possible gun crime committed by a man who perpetrated the worst massacre in US history, bringing up a relatively trivial crime next to a monstrous one as though I’m equating the two. I’m not. The point of bringing it up is to discover as much as we can about how the crime occurred, and how he obtained his weapons plays a role in that.
Just so we’re all on the same page.
Update: Extreme caution–this could be a hoax. But it doesn’t ring quite hollow.
Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter’s picture. I know his name and home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought the gun?
ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with CNN, FOX, etc.
My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event 35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for 35 days. We got lucky.
By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank God.
The poster seems to own a gun shop. If he’s right, the gunman kept the receipt for the guns in his pockets…since March? But ground the serial number off one of the guns? And his name is Cho. I guess we’ll know if this is our guy soon enough.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for the catch.
Update (AP): WaPo confirms that the serial numbers were indeed removed from both guns. Hmmm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Illegal guns, like illegal drugs, will ALWAYS be easy to get. Had the professors at V tech had a permit to carry, and used the permit to carry, they could have stopped this gunman before he killed so many. Law abiding citizens should ALWAYS have the option to protect themselves from those who cannot legally get their hands on legally purchased weapons. If law abiding citizens choose not to exercise their right to protect themselves, then that is the chance they take in an open society as ours. Those of us who choose to exercise our right to protect ourselves should not suffer at the hands of those who do not make that same choice.
lynnv on April 17, 2007 at 8:27 AM
This incident should be compared to the U. Texas sniper of some 40 years ago. At that time, students took rifles from their car trunks and helped police shoot down the sniper. Individual and collective self-defense are concepts which most of the media have forgotten.
chsw
chsw on April 17, 2007 at 9:04 AM
I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of non-citizens. I don’t think the 2nd Amendment should apply to them. We don’t know these people’s history and if we don’t allow citizen felons and citizen mental cases to own guns, why should it be assumed that a visitor with unknown history is sane and not a criminal?
Granted, the visa holder determined to shoot up a crowd isn’t gonna let some prohibition stand in his way, so you got to ask: How are these foreign students a benefit to the United States except for the funeral industry?
Perchant on April 17, 2007 at 9:14 AM
There is a lot posted here about the guns, the student visa, the 2nd amendment.
My question is this. When will the President and Congress get serious about illegal aliens and all the entry problems into this country?
Maybe be need to lock down the country until we sort these problems out.
Wade on April 17, 2007 at 9:27 AM
There’s a question.
Don’t hold your breath.
The answer, as I’ve said before, is that our government is not going to get serious about protecting our borders and seriously controlling immigration until something truly bad happens. Yesterday wasn’t enough. 9/11 wasn’t enough.
You watch. When terrorists sneak a nuke across the border and use it … that’s about when you’ll start to hear a real discussion on our security.
Which makes me unimaginably sad. Those people yesterday didn’t have to die. And the people that will die in the future are going to die, because we won’t do anything to stop it, until it’s too late.
We never learn.
Professor Blather on April 17, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Word is that the student was here legally on a student visa, so illegal immigration is NOT an issue here.
The issues are why were the students and faculty were deliberately kept helpless, and WHY THE @#$%^&*^% DIDN’T THEY LOCK DOWN THE CAMPUS WITH A KNOWN SHOOTER ON THE LOOSE???
Lancer on April 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Mace from across the room isn’t going to stop you from being shot. Neither will keeping your guns at home.
Everyone should carry a gun at all times! Every crazy would know it, and everyone else would be more polite.
The guy would have been taken out real quick.
It really pisses me off when I hear other people try to justify, why I shouldn’t be able to protect myself at all times. If you want to be a victim so be it, but don’t make my family and I victims in the process.
Gooch on April 17, 2007 at 10:51 AM
WHY THE @#$%^&*^% DIDN’T THEY LOCK DOWN THE CAMPUS WITH A KNOWN SHOOTER ON THE LOOSE???
There aren’t enough police officers in the entire state of Virginia to seal the campus off completely. But even if it had been shut down, then what? How long does it stay shut down, and how do you know when it’s safe to open it up? Do you strip search every last person on campus before letting them leave? And if the suspect is contained within one of the buildings, what’s to prevent him from killing the people he’s contained with?
Lehuster on April 17, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Maybe not this case but immigration and student Visa’s are a problem. My question is again this:
My question is this. When will the President and Congress get serious about illegal aliens and all the entry problems into this country?
Wade on April 17, 2007 at 11:38 AM
That black-rifleslink? Bogus.
Don’t you folks click on links to verify them before you embed them?
pabarge on April 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Just as an aside full-auto will only run you about $1000.
But I don’t think it should be ilegal either.
It’s not the type of gun it’s what you do with it.
Besides well aimed bullets from a semi-auto will hit more targets than the spray from full-auto.
Gooch on April 17, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Fox showed a picture of the guns… they were a Sig P228 and a Sig Mosquito. That “source” is bunk…
BadBrad on April 17, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I disagree. You’d see people forced to learn at a very young age that they must handle themselves in a mature way or else face another’s rage. More guns, less rage. More guns, less crime. It’s like the Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy on a micro scale. It works.
Freelancer on April 17, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2