Goose Creek suspect tried to buy a rifle
posted at 11:28 am on October 9, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
He already had one, but tried to purchase another one during the trip that ended up being his last as a free man for quite a while. He wanted the second rifle to protect his “fireworks,” of course.
[Youssef Samir] Megahed and Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, were traveling through Ocala in August and stopped at a Wal-Mart early in the morning, but did not buy any firearms because there was no one in that department to help them, the prosecutor said. It was not clear from the hearing which Wal-Mart they visited.
But it was on that trip that they ended up being arrested in Goose Creek, S.C., when police reported finding items used to make pipe bombs in the trunk of their car.
Both were indicted on federal charges of transporting explosives across state lines.
Mohamed also faces terrorism-related charges for allegedly making and posting on the Internet a video demonstrating how to convert a remote-control toy into a detonator for explosives.
Hoffer argued during the hearing that the stop in Ocala to look at guns combined with the other evidence suggests a “sinister nature” to the excursion. The students have contended it was an innocent college road trip to the Carolina beaches.
Yup. They were just two innocent lads, probably just looking for a White Castle.
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:
Just two naive jihadis taking a summer drive….
VinceP1974 on October 9, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Boy, we need stricter gun laws.
-ducks from flying debris-
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Wal-Mart: Doing their part to fight the jihad, one crappy customer service experience at a time.
DaveS on October 9, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Boy, we need stricter gun laws.
-ducks from flying debris-
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Damn straight you ought to duck!
Personally, I think the two yutes need to be sent home, after serving 10 years in a maximum security federal prison.
georgej on October 9, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Youssef: I am so hungry. I’m gonna eat, like, 20 of those burgers, man.
Ahmed: Dude, f$%^#n’ I will see your 20 burgers and raise you 5 orders of fries.
dont taze me bro on October 9, 2007 at 11:43 AM
An interesting Guiliani speech from ‘97 on gun and driver’s licenses.
JiangxiDad on October 9, 2007 at 11:44 AM
They got off easy, they were this close to picking up Doogie.
bbz123 on October 9, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Where’s Jack Palance when ya need him?
JP : Pick up the gun Ahmed
RH : I don’t wanna mister
JP : Pick up the gun
RH : You’ll shoot me if I do
JP : Pick up the gun
RH : OK…easy now…
BOOM
JP : You saw him…he had a gun
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 12:14 PM
I agree, and I do so as an owner of or 4 firearms. The second amendent, just like the first, has to have some obvious limitations to it. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a movie theater, you can’t incite violence. You can’t own armor piercing rounds, you can’t own explosives. I also think the ease of going to a gun show and walking away with a weapon is crazy.
As for these two, george is right; prison, then kick them out of the country.
BadgerHawk on October 9, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Funny I was thinking something similar about Murth and Reid…..
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:18 PM
OK so perhaps I might be a bit extreme, but then again animals like these cannot be redeemed or rehabilitated, they’ll just find a way to kill someone else in Allah’s name somewhere else. They made themselves our problem, for us to send them anywhere else is just us making our problems somebody else’s problems. Not a very responsibly thing for us to do if you ask me.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Yea, because a lawyer who sues people for a living cant understand what “Shall not be infringed upon” means.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I’m putting you over my knee and spanking a good constitutional lesson into your ass BadgerHawk
And I’m likin’ it…so I may be some time
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 12:24 PM
*thwack*
SHALL
*thwack*
NOT
*thwack*
BE
*thwack*
INFRINGED
*thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack**thwack*
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 12:26 PM
They were way off!
Though they do sell them in the frozen section at Wal-Mart!!
kiakjones on October 9, 2007 at 12:28 PM
While I heartily agree with the sentiment expressed, I do suspect that you are enjoying that more than is *cough*
necessaryhealthy *cough*…doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:29 PM
It’s my second most favorite form of exercise for my right arm ;-)
OK…some [slightly] more serious comments…
And where are these ‘obvious’ limitations defined in the constitution? Or is this just your opinion…in which case, how much constitutionally overriding authority do you think your opinion has?
What if there’s a fire?
What if I need to encourage others to bear arms and overthrow gubmint?
What if I need to pierce armor? Those gubmint agents have some hard shells…
What if I need to blow something up?
Me too…you’ll get your ass shot, for starters
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Heh heh heh this comes to mind……..
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:41 PM
You’ve never been to a gun show, have you?
If you were to believe the media hype, you’d think that it was a free-for-all with no background checks, where laws don’t apply. It’s not true- buying a gun from a dealer at a gun show is no different or easier than buying one from a sporting goods store.
Sometimes you’ll see private party guns for sale by someone who’s selling one from their personal collection, but I’m talking maybe a couple guns in a room full of hundreds. Still, if you were looking to avoid background checks, it would be much easier to find what you’re looking for in the newspaper classifieds than to show up at a gun show and hope that one of the few (if any) privately sold guns is what you’re looking for.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Boy, we need stricter gun laws.
-ducks from flying debris-
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Troll speak.
Maxx on October 9, 2007 at 12:44 PM
LOL…yes, I remember that story…perfect example!
WTF? Do they come with disco lights and dry ice? Party!
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 12:45 PM
BTW…don’t know if anyone else can confirm this…but I’ve noticed that my local WalMarts have downplayed their gun section…there’s no “Sporting Goods” sign hanging from the roof. They’re still selling guns (no hanguns grrr) but they’re just not drawing attention to that section of the store…
???
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 12:47 PM
LMAO!
infidel4life on October 9, 2007 at 12:48 PM
And still CAIR and the ACLU will send lawyers to defend these two. Why? Racism, of course.
“Can’t a brown man buy a gun around here?”
Where’s the Reverend Hi-jackson and the Reverend Shark-ton for these blatant civil rights abuses????
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2007 at 12:49 PM
The closest one to me has been that way for some time now, likewise my local neighborhood K-Mart has theirs seriously downplayed. And yes my local neighborhood K-Mart still sells ammo and a small selection of rifles and shotguns.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I think we can all agree that the ownership of a rifle is our right…but the ownership of bomb making equipment, near a military installation, along with a rifle, is crossing the line.
In other words, common sense…you own a gun, you own dozens of guns not a big deal…own the guns, some bomb making equipment, live in the basement of your parents home for 30 years, worried about the take over of the country, and you should be given the opportunity to “explain” yourself.
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Ah yes…Amendment 10.5
“The assertions of limitations upon government power shall not be construed to deny the possibility of arbitrary modification in accordance with common sense”
Puke
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 12:59 PM
There is something extremely rotten going on at the University of South Florida.
First there was Professor Sam Al Arian who was convicted of financing terrorism and is currently in jail, awaiting deportation.
Then last year two middle Easiern USF students were arrested for mistakenly getting on a Tampa school bus loaded with elementary school kids. Can you say dry run?
Now these two lads who were, incidentally, renting a house that Al Arian owns.
Do you think our ole buddy Chertoff can connect these dots?
On a brighter note, the USF Football iteam is ranked #5 in the nation, and is seriously considering changing their logo from “Bulls” to “Bombers”.
there it is on October 9, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Depends on what you call “bomb making equipment”. It’s not at all unusual for those of us who handload to have 10 pounds of smokeless powder on hand. Heck, for someone who loads multiple calibers and types of round (handgun, rifle, shotgun), 10 pounds would be considered a small amount; for an active shooter and handloader 30 pounds wouldn’t be out of the question at all.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 1:04 PM
True, however once said individual starts throwing in such sundries as caps for threaded cast iron pipes with holes drilled in them fuses blasting caps cast iron threaded pipe with external scoring on them, then substantial questions are in order.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Sure, if there is credible reasoning behind a claim of ‘probable cause’ then of course we have to take action to secure ourselves.
But let’s not fall into a sheeplike acceptance of ‘imputing motive’.
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 1:18 PM
In my area it’s down to ammo and a few airguns only, no firearms anymore.
infidel4life on October 9, 2007 at 1:29 PM
HA! God I don’t miss that food.
Kini on October 9, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Oh sure I agree, no need to be searching every person who reloads their own ammo’s house just because they have certain materials laying (so to speak) around. However should a genuine justifiable case of probable cause result in said search and such sundries as afore mentioned be discovered, the individual in question does need to be exposed to some very serious questions.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Absolutely.
Now…I’ve got a couple acres of serious rock I need to blow up…how about it?
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Actually, there is case law on the matter. It has nothing to do with common sense, many times it has to do with public safety or security an an over-riding factor. You might disagree, but depending on the argument, precedent is not with you.
Hootie on October 9, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Er ummm, well I was a supervisor of a demolitions company, I used to be allowed to blow things up… ;)
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Nope, as dorien and I have stated…if there is sound reason to provide probable cause that I am a danger to the public or national security in general, fine…go ahead and investigate/prosecute.
I object to the de facto assumption that possession of certain items equates to guilt, that’s all.
It wasn’t that long ago that anyone (even kids) could buy guns & explosives over the counter with no checks…and no mayhem
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Because someone’s bound to ask for it…
Brandenburg
Current federal regulations on guns
Hootie on October 9, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Yeah. I don’t buy it. There’s always someone around the gun counter at my Wal-mart, but there’s a waiting period on all firearm sales, no?
I can’t think of a state that still allows you to buy a gun and get it same day, in CT it was two weeks and I just moved to SC and I was told it was the same.
But I guess the Brady people say there isn’t, I should call the locals and make sure. I guess I’ll loose my Libertarain cred when saying I don’t think waiting periods are such a bad idea.
Sorry to think this out in the comments.
Rob Taylor on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
There is no waiting period in Missouri for one example. There are many states that do not have waiting periods. I would hazard a guess that there are more states without them than with them. Waiting periods have been shown time and again to have no effect on crime rates. Very few people planning a crime can pass an NCIC background check. And if they are planning a crime they will just plan ahead for the waiting period. That is why crime stats clearly show that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are illegal. On the other hand, if an ex-husband has threatened to kill you tomorrow, a waiting period is a little inconvenient.
deepdiver on October 9, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Comment pages: