ATF pulls license of one particular gun shop

posted at 11:01 am on April 7, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

It took little more than the headline of this article to begin raising eyebrows

Gun shop that sold to mother of Newtown shooter loses license

(Reuters) – The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.

The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.

“We did revoke their federal firearms license,” she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

This announcement has already provoked cries of Tyranny from alarmed Second Amendment defenders, and it’s no mystery why. The old rule of where there’s smoke there’s fire would make it utterly ignorant to see something like this happen and not have more questions. But there is still a lot that we don’t know about this. For one thing, the response from Riverview – the gun shop in question – was rather muted.

A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza’s mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.

This doesn’t rule out the whole Tyranny! suspicion, because it’s certainly possible that the shop owners feel like they are under the microscope of the ATF and are cautious about talking to the media. But before I go rushing to judgement here, it’s worth noting that there are other possibilities which aren’t far fetched at all. Various businesses get their licenses pulled all the time for offenses ranging from gross misconduct to mundane paperwork snafus. Stores get banned from selling cigarettes or alcohol if one of their employees is found selling to minors a couple of times or if they fail to send in a renewal or inspection form by the proper date.

There was obviously a high profile, extensive investigation after the Newtown shooting which delved into every pertinent fact of the case,and that would have included a look at the shop where the weapons were originally purchased. While it’s not impossible that somebody in the administration is going after this shop out of vengeance, it’s also possible that the aftermath of the investigation turned up some problematic detail about Riverview’s operation. Particularly if it was an honest mistake in their paperwork or a code discrepancy on weapons storage which they will be able to clear up quickly and get their license restored, it would clearly be in their best interest not to go bad mouthing the ATF to reporters.

In fact, while acknowledging that this is completely speculative, if the government had gone in vindictively and yanked their license for no valid reason, I think Riverview would be all the more likely to be screaming to the rafters. The muted tone of their response makes me think that it will turn out to be something far more mundane which will be cleared up and see them back in business. Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep an eye on this. I’ve been very wrong before.

UPDATE: (Jazz) Thanks to readers, apparently the local media has reported incidents of inventory problems at the store prior to the school shooting. This may be part of it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

Oh no, this sounds like conspiracy theory stuff. They would never do anything like this.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

/s

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Much todo bout nothin.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Window dressing.

itsspideyman on April 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

if the government had gone in vindictively and yanked their license for no valid reason,/blockguote>
Just want to say that if the government is doing this vindictively and found a valid reason, it’s still Tyranny. The vindictive nature makes it so.

Plus, with laws as they are, most businesses that don’t employ a law firm full time are going to be in violation of something, so those “valid reasons” probably shouldn’t be treated as valid for a supposedly free people.

JSchuler on April 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM

(Reuters) – The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.

“We did revoke their federal firearms license,” she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

The fact that they won’t give a reason or an explanation of why they won’t give a reason for revocation, indicates a need to push this with the agency.

Vince on April 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Various businesses get their licenses pulled all the time for offenses ranging from gross misconduct to mundane paperwork snafus.

Yeah, and people get audited by the IRS all the time. Not like they would single out certain individuals and groups for political reasons.

Even more /s

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Arms, tobacco and firearms should be the name of a store.

newportmike on April 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM

nothin.

noforeskin on April 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM

…you are!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

“We did revoke their federal firearms license,” she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

Obama/Holder.
In a country in which laws are respected, they would HAVE to provide the reason for such an act.
They will get away with it because no on actually cares.

“First they can for____ and I said nothing”
Etc.

Mimzey on April 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Vince on April 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM

here’s your tinfoil hat

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Why does one need a license to exercise their second amendment rights?

That’s the main reason why I do not have a concealed carry permit. I do not believe that the government has any right to interfere, that it is an infringement.

Just as it would be if I had to get a license or permit to write an article or publish a blog in exercising my first amendment rights.

Given the growing tyrannical nature of this Regime I wouldn’t and won’t own anything or any piece of paper registered with it that would mark me as a gun owner. And neither should you.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

If I recall correctly this gun shop had had a lot of its weapons turn up in the use of crimes and there was some question as to rather they were doing due dilligence in the background checks. But that evidence only came to light because of the increased scrutiny after Newtown (it was always there but nobody was looking).

So yeah, I slightly raise an eyebrow at this but I don’t think it’s 100% without merit… per se…

Of course, I’m eagerly awaiting Obama to be impeached for Benghazi too…

Same problem we all face though… There’s so many laws on the books now that we’re all criminals and we can all be thrown in jail for something as soon as somebody starts looking.

We don’t live in a free country anymore.

(oh and stop posting on facebook…)

Skywise on April 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Can’t go after the person who made Lanza’s crimes possible- she died first. So go after merchant of a legal product.

Lanza, Loughner, Holmes- family and authorities knew and failed to act. So of course, find someone else to blame.

M240H on April 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Why does one need a license to exercise their second amendment rights?

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Someone forgot to dot an ‘i’. The crime of it all. Barry sent guns to the cartel. No harm, no foul. Go figure.

Limerick on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Why does one need a license to exercise their second amendment rights?

You don’t need a license to own a gun… you need a license to carry in public. (It’s different from state to state and even city to city… in my state it’s legal to open carry (IE have it holstered on your belt) but you need a license to conceal carry (keep it in your purse, under your shirt, etc)

Skywise on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

This is rather confusing, from The Blaze article-

On Thursday agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and local police raided and closed the gun shop

and further in the article, this-

Shelley Clemens, said Friday that she and her husband still don’t know why the ATF revoked his firearms license. She said the store remains open selling ammunition and other items while LaGuercia appeals the revocation.

Was it their FFL license revoked or their business license?

fourdeucer on April 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM

tinfoil hat

noforeskin on April 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

…won’t stay on the condom you wear!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM

here’s your tinfoil hat

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Why is that?

Mimzey on April 7, 2013 at 11:19 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I own plenty of guns and have never killed anyone with them. Weird huh?

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

~there might be paperwork snafus

Yeah, in a highly regulated atmosphere, that is a sure fire way for bureaucracies to be tyrannical.

Chubbs65 on April 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

My neighbors teenage son died in a car accident.
The car dealer who sold him the car should not be allowed to sell cars.

Mimzey on April 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Theres your tinfoil hat.

Mimzey on April 7, 2013 at 11:22 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Only if it’s misused in that way.

You can kill people with speech too. IE: “FIRE! in a crowded theater”. But I don’t need a license for speech.

Big Government fans despise the second amendment because they fear a government that is outgunned by the citizenry. Meaning, there IS a force out there that can do away with Big Government if it so desired to after having enough of being VIOLATED by Big Government.

Which is what the Founders intended.

A good man has a healthy fear of God.

A good government has a healthy fear of the Citizen.

History has proven WITHOUT EXCEPTION that whenever the Citizen is disarmed and government loses that fear, tyranny follows.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I own plenty of guns and have never killed anyone with them. Weird huh?

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

what does a gun do? shoots bullet at rapid velocity? what is the purpose of shooting a rapid metal shard at rapid velocity in a very accurate manner…

hmmm, must be so many beneficial societal uses for that rIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

With the price of ammo these days, just selling the stuff can still net a store a tidy profit. It is a wonderment, tho, that that very store’s license was pulled. hmmmmmm.

Kissmygrits on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

what does a gun do? shoots bullet at rapid velocity? what is the purpose of shooting a rapid metal shard at rapid velocity in a very accurate manner…

hmmm, must be so many beneficial societal uses for that rIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Every sporting goods shop in America sells bows and crossbows which do the same exact thing and they don’t require background checks or permits…

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

What does that have to do with anything? The Founders didn’t write the 2nd Amendment because they thought firearms made great flower holders.

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Mimzey on April 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

cars serve a necessary purpose in the functioning of society…guns don’t. hth (hope this helps)

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

She said the store remains open selling ammunition and other items while LaGuercia appeals the revocation.

Use the legal system to punish them via accruing legal expenses, and set an example to what others may expect if they dare question the regime.

Mimzey on April 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

hmmm, must be so many beneficial societal uses for that rIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Absolutely. Tell us wise one, what was the intent of the 2nd Amendment?

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

cars serve a necessary purpose in the functioning of society…guns don’t. hth (hope this helps)

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Sure they do. They keep libs on the other side of the fence. Thank goodness.

Limerick on April 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

A good man has a healthy fear of God.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I stopped reading after that…what an utterly ridiculous and foolish statement. Because i don’t believe in an invisible bearded man and buy into fairy tales Im not a good man? or Allahpundit is not a good man?

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

In Mexico, there’s no problem with the government pulling the license of gun stores. There’s only one store, and the government runs it.

Socratease on April 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

You’re not a serious person, or you are so well marinated in liberal bullshit that you can’t think straight.
My money is on you’re not a serious person, trapped in the intellectual prowess of a teenager. Or maybe an actual teenager.
Not worth anyones time.

Mimzey on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Absolutely. Tell us wise one, what was the intent of the 2nd Amendment?

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to form a credible militia that could fight a government tyranny

now, if you think citizens with guns can fight today’s military with their tanks, chemical weapons, fighter jets then you’re in some fantasy land

why don’t we allow citizens to own their own tanks or bazookas then? i mean, weapons dont kill people, people do.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

I stopped reading after that…what an utterly ridiculous and foolish statement. Because i don’t believe in an invisible bearded man and buy into fairy tales Im not a good man? or Allahpundit is not a good man?

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

If you do not believe in God, yes, something IS wrong with you. I’m not going to sugar coat things, that is a statement of fact. I’m not saying it makes you evil, but, yes, there is something important missing in your character. That is not politically correct to say, but I’m going to say it, and if AP or any other mod her bans me for it it says a lot more about their character than mine.

It certainly is a lot harder for an individual to invent his or her own system of morality from scratch than it is to follow the tried and true one that Christianity has refined for thousands of years, but it’s not impossible.

Unfortunately, people who do not believe in God often substitute false ones in His Place. Obama, for example, is “god” to many misguided people, including himself.

I am hoping that someday, before it’s too late, you and Allahpundit, and other “atheists” find God. I pray for that.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM

what does a gun do? shoots bullet at rapid velocity? what is the purpose of shooting a rapid metal shard at rapid velocity in a very accurate manner… nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

George Washington: “What is this nonpartisan person talking about and where can I get my hands on these weapons”.

Rovin on April 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

now, if you think citizens with guns can fight today’s military with their tanks, chemical weapons, fighter jets then you’re in some fantasy land

why don’t we allow citizens to own their own tanks or bazookas then? i mean, weapons dont kill people, people do.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

When the government loses the People it will soon after lose the ability to field tanks and fighter jets. Mostly because significant parts of the military will mutiny. ESPECIALLY if some Tyrant in DC ordered them to use chemical weapons or other WMD’s against our own People.

Our first revolution was won, essentially with deer rifles. Our second one will be too.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

partisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Your pResident claims he shoots skeet “all the time”.

Is that killing too?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM

What kind of background check would have established that the non-crazy mother might have given free access for the weapons she bought at this store to her drugged and deranged son?

Liberals don’t care because their minds are locked and loaded with gun-hysteria and ammo-phobia.

virgo on April 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

partisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Your pResident claims he shoots skeet “all the time”.

Is that killing too?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM

If he shoots a shotgun as accurately as he shoots a basketball it certainly is.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to form a credible militia that could fight a government tyranny

partisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

SCOTUS disagreed with you in DC VS Heller.

F-

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Particularly if it was an honest mistake in their paperwork or a code discrepancy on weapons storage which they will be able to clear up quickly and get their license restored, it would clearly be in their best interest not to go bad mouthing the ATF to reporters.

If we operate precisely according to the law, criticism of the government shouldn’t matter to how the laws are followed by the government. Only in the REB’s thuggish tyranny does your exercise of free speech determine how laws are enforced.

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I am hoping that someday, before it’s too late, you and Allahpundit, and other “atheists” find God. I pray for that.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM

why you sanctimonious bum! I dont need you to pray for me

its crazy to you that ppl can’t have a morality system without religion? so, if a kid isn’t indoctrinated in some religion (christianity, islam, judaism, whatver fairy myth you want to fill in the blank) they won’t know that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that hurting others is wrong?

you don’t think humans are capable of an inherent morality? jeebus dood

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to form a credible militia that could fight a government tyranny

now, if you think citizens with guns can fight today’s military with their tanks, chemical weapons, fighter jets then you’re in some fantasy land

why don’t we allow citizens to own their own tanks or bazookas then? i mean, weapons dont kill people, people do.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

You know what they say about blind squirrels? Anyways, we still abide by the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. And since the government has been regularly denying the right to bear certain arms I would say the government is in violation of the Constitution. I’m sure you’re OK with that considering the shallowness of your logical thinking skills, but what if the government denied us access to the internet or restricted how we could act on it? Why is that any different?

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

What kind of background check would have established that the non-crazy mother might have given free access for the weapons she bought at this store to her drugged and deranged son?

Liberals don’t care because their minds are locked and loaded with gun-hysteria and ammo-phobia.

virgo on April 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The second amendment says what it says. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The Feds are on thin ice even being able to prevent FELONS from owning weapons. That restriction isn’t in the Constitution…

Want to change that? Amend it! That’s the lawful way to do it. You don’t do end runs around the Constitution by using legislation, regulations, and judges. That is tyranny.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to form a credible militia that could fight a government tyranny

now, if you think citizens with guns can fight today’s military with their tanks, chemical weapons, fighter jets then you’re in some fantasy land

why don’t we allow citizens to own their own tanks or bazookas then? i mean, weapons dont kill people, people do.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Right, since handguns and shotguns aren’t much use against tanks and fighters and bunker-buster bombs, it clearly makes sense to keep ratcheting up the pressure against law-abiding gun owners and the law-abiding store owners who would sell them those laughable peashooters in the first place. Then they become sitting ducks against the occasional roving gang of thugs that pile on against small groups of people, but since cars “serve a necessary purpose in the functioning of society” and those laughable peashooter handguns and rifles don’t, victims of violence need to use cars to flee their attackers rather than use guns to defend themselves.

Mimzey’s right. You are not a serious person.

Aitch748 on April 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Your pResident claims he shoots skeet “all the time”.

Is that killing too?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM

OUR president isn’t perfect. he still has much evolution to undergo.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Your pResident claims he shoots skeet “all the time”.

Is that killing too?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM

OUR president isn’t perfect.

he still has much evolution to undergo.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

because it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

It’s about power. The 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms is a power to the people intolerable to a Statist, i.e., the power centralizer and controller. This is why every totalitarian leader and regime in human history has banned private ownership of guns. The Left can’t abide this right. It establishes a power equalizer that disgusts and frightens them. Their fear and loathing of it rips apart their pretense of “power to the people.”

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

what does a gun do? shoots bullet at rapid velocity? what is the purpose of shooting a rapid metal shard at rapid velocity in a very accurate manner…

hmmm, must be so many beneficial societal uses for that rIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

How about protecting yourself and your family from some psycho with a gun or knife. Oh, that’s right you are a liberal that would just lie down and allow your loved one to be assaulted or worse.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

why don’t we allow citizens to own their own tanks or bazookas then? i mean, weapons dont kill people, people do.

nonintelligent on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. all fall under the auspices of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as “other destructive devices.” In general this means they may be privately owned, subject to the payment of a transfer tax, and filling out all of the requisite paperwork.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM

You know what they say about blind squirrels? Anyways, we still abide by the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. And since the government has been regularly denying the right to bear certain arms I would say the government is in violation of the Constitution. I’m sure you’re OK with that considering the shallowness of your logical thinking skills, but what if the government denied us access to the internet or restricted how we could act on it? Why is that any different?

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

It wouldn’t be any different. The government no more has any authority to restrict access to weapons than it has authority to access the Internet. For the same reason, it is expressly PROHIBITED to do so.

If I wanted to put an artillery piece in my front yard for the specific purpose of punching through the armor of a DHS vehicle that rolls over my front fence, I have every legitimate right to do so.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

OUR president isn’t perfect.

he still has much evolution to undergo.

nonintelligent on April 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

What a Racist thing to say.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

If he shoots a shotgun as accurately as he shoots a basketball it certainly is.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Remember the Cheney Duck Massacre!

Shy Guy on April 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Real solutions in Texas: Hundreds of Texas Educators Take Free Concealed Handgun Class

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

You never answered my original question-when Dear Leader goes skeet shooting, is he killing too? And does the skeet feel any pain when he shoots it?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. all fall under the auspices of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as “other destructive devices.” In general this means they may be privately owned, subject to the payment of a transfer tax, and filling out all of the requisite paperwork.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Which was in and of itself a blatantly Unconstitutional law from the Roosevelt Regime, rubber stamped by a packed Supreme Court.

It’s also been proven a complete failure, and should be held up as the example as to why “gun control” fails EVERY TIME ITS TRIED.

Criminal gangs have access to fully automatic weapons and everything else banned by that law and use them all the time. It’s not stopped that. Chicago is even more lawless and controlled by criminal gangs today than it was in Capone’s day.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

What a Racist thing to say.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

the fact that you interpret it as racist reveals your inner racism…for I had no such intent in my statement and any nonracist would not’ve taken it to be

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

The second amendment seems to be one of the last obstacles to the destruction of the middle class/ordinary man in this country. Smart founders.

txmomof6 on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

OUR president isn’t perfect.

he still has much evolution to undergo.

nonintelligent on April 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

What a Racist thing to say.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Especially so if one points out that Dear Leader’s “evolution” is ALWAYS retrograde. If he keep “evolving” at the rate he currently is he’ll be an Amoeba by next year.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

WTF?

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The second amendment seems to be one of the last obstacles to the destruction of the middle class/ordinary man in this country. Smart founders.

txmomof6 on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Armed citizens are the only barrier remaining between DC and absolute power. Which is why it’s being attacked.

It was put in there because that’s exactly what it was INTENDED to be. The second amendment is the FINAL FIREWALL of our Republic.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonintelligent on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

F-

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Which explains why you don’t seem to understand much of anything.

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Well, that pretty much clarifies your ‘understanding’

Moron.

BigWyo on April 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Then we shouldn’t have to rely on one for our self defense a la Biden.

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM

What a Racist thing to say.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

the fact that you interpret it as racist reveals your inner racism…for I had no such intent in my statement and any nonracist would not’ve taken it to be

nonintelligent on April 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Thanks for admitting your total ignorance of the meaning of the word “evolution”.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM

frankly Im not familiar with skeet shooting…I assumed it was similar to paintball guns

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM
WTF?

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Don’t bother. It’s on a roll.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM

frankly Im not familiar with skeet shooting…I assumed it was similar to paintball guns

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Holy $hit.

LOL!!!

BigWyo on April 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM

F-

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Looks like he brought a broken nail file to a gun fight.

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Have you watched the news lately? Egypt and Libya had powerful armies with guns and tanks and jet fighters.

How did that work out?

countrybumpkin on April 7, 2013 at 11:51 AM

The investigation uncovered the fact that they were selling guns.

The Rogue Tomato on April 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Much todo bout nothin.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM

So you have all the information and facts about the case and why the licesne was pulled, partisan? Why don’t you share that information with us?
Or are you just blowin’ smoke out of your ass again – in order to try to defend the fascist administration of your sainted obamassiah?

btw; The expression is “Much ADO about nothing.” Do try to keep up.

Solaratov on April 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

<blockquotebecause it is a killing tool for the sole purpose of killing

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

This is the mentality of the gun control crowd. Its also 100% off base. They have a problem differentiating between killing and murder. They fail to see that it would’ve been better if someone with a CC permit was on scene to KILL the perp before he MURDERED more people.

Paco on April 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

frankly Im not familiar with skeet shooting…I assumed it was similar to paintball guns

non-IQ on April 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Skeet shooting is done with shotguns.

And many skeet shooters use semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns.

Now, one more time: why are you giving Dear Leader a pass for murdering skeets with a shotgun? “All the time”?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

FWIW, there was a story about this in local liberal rag a couple days ago. What I haven’t seen reported else is that 3 days before the Sandy Hook shootings and guy walked into Riverview Gun Sales and stole and AR15 rifle right off the counter and the theft was completely unnoticed by the two store employees behind the counter.

It wasn’t until six days later when Hartford police recovered the weapon in local hotel that the store even became aware of the theft. The whole incident was caught on tape by the stores surveillance cameras BTW.

His FFL was toast the moment that rifle was stolen.

See: http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Nancy-Lanza-s-gun-seller-loses-license-4412088.php

jasetaro on April 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Our morning troll sounds even more stupid than Diana DeGette (D-CO), who didn’t know that magazines can be refilled: Dem rep sponsoring gun-control bill seems to think that … magazines can’t be reloaded

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

frankly Im not familiar with skeet shooting…I assumed it was similar to paintball guns

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM

You should get yourself a starter pistol to protect yourself. Or maybe a skeet pistol.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Try standing in front of one when it goes off.

OldEnglish on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM


CBS NEWS

His wife, Shelley Clemens, said Friday that she and her husband still don’t know why the ATF revoked his firearms license. She said the store remains open selling ammunition and other items while LaGuercia appeals the revocation.

“They just came in the store after Sandy Hook, raided the store and took away the license,” she said, referring further questions to her husband. LaGuercia, of Agawam, Mass., didn’t return phone messages Friday.

Probably where TheBlaze got their story Right Scoop also got it from here but gave them credit/link.

Looks very bad.

Steveangell on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

I’m not going to waste my time responding to that because you’re bringing up this skeet nonsense to obfuscate the real issue that guns are a far greater danger to society than benefit

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Sorry but I have to leave this laughfest for a while. And no, I’m not going out to murder skeets.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Well, since we as Jury members inevitably start from the wrong point of view, that the offender must be guilty of something, undoubtably the shop owner made a mistake somewhere along the line. Something small, and inconsequential, but still the government will consider it significant.

After all there are a million laws on the books, and more than ten thousand gun laws. How likely is it that you run afoul of one of them wihout even knowing it?

Snake307 on April 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Guilt by association.

sadatoni on April 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to form a credible militia that could fight a government tyranny

now, if you think citizens with guns can fight today’s military with their tanks, chemical weapons, fighter jets then you’re in some fantasy land

why don’t we allow citizens to own their own tanks or bazookas then? i mean, weapons dont kill people, people do.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

SWalker on April 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

My new “skeet” gun is a Mossberg 410.

You’d prefer to not be on the business end of it.

Honestly, do us a favor and stop making proclamations about gun control if you’re not well versed. A lot of folks here will provide you some insights to the sport aspects of firearm ownership if you ask them. And also honestly, the 2nd Amendment couldn’t be clearer with it’s intend insofar as basic rights and personal protection; so there really is no argument there to speak of. You just sound silly.

The “much ado” comment was not well thought out either.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

I’ve been pwned.

non-IQ on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Corrected to reflect reality.

PS, before I wander off, when you were regaling us all here with your High IQ on another thread nearly 3 days ago (Friday afternoon) you claimed that President Nixon had admitted breaking the law, but when I asked you for a credible cite telling us when he did so and what law(s) he admitted to breaking, you suddenly disappeared. Why was that?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Not only are shotguns deadly, but they are probably the best self-defense weapon of them all, because they don’t have to be aimed as accurately to get results, as a pistol or rifle would have to be.

IE: there is an intruder in your house. It is dark. Turning on a light reveals WHERE YOU ARE to someone quite likely armed and dangerous. You can hear him but not see him. Point the shotgun at the noise and BOOM! One dead crook, not only dead but DOWN.

Not the best way to handle a situation, but it happens all the time. And it’s a capability unique to a shotgun.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

You don’t understand very much, do you?

ajacksonian on April 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

from my understanding…

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

You don’t have one. Just emotion. That’s the problem.

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Or maybe a skeet pistol.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Like Rooster?

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

IE: there is an intruder in your house. It is dark. Turning on a light reveals WHERE YOU ARE to someone quite likely armed and dangerous. You can hear him but not see him. Point the shotgun at the noise and BOOM! One dead crook, not only dead but DOWN.

Not the best way to handle a situation, but it happens all the time. And it’s a capability unique to a shotgun.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Yep. I’m loaded 7 3/4 on the first blast, 00 Buck on the 2nd. 3 sets of 2. My dear old Dad taugt me that.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Well, since we as Jury members inevitably start from the wrong point of view, that the offender must be guilty of something, undoubtably the shop owner made a mistake somewhere along the line. Something small, and inconsequential, but still the government will consider it significant.

After all there are a million laws on the books, and more than ten thousand gun laws. How likely is it that you run afoul of one of them wihout even knowing it?

Snake307 on April 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

We need more civics lessons in school (won’t ever happen) about what powers Juries actually have. Jurors have MORE AUTHORITY than the judge does, in fact. They can completely ignore his instructions, for example. They don’t have to limit themselves to judging the evidence in the case, but they have the authority to judge the JUSTNESS of the case, and the laws involved. This has happened a lot in our history.

And once they find a man not guilty, even if he is, by the letter of the law that the Jury found itself unjust, the decision is FINAL and the government can never try that person again for the same offense, and that CANNOT be appealed!

Now you know why intelligent people get weeded out of jury pools… I was called just last week. I was handed a letter dismissing me before I even spoke to anyone.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Jury nullification, just to add, is a feature of EVERY legal system based on English Common Law, as ours is…

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM

I’m not going to waste my time responding to that because you’re bringing up this skeet nonsense to obfuscate the real issue that guns are a far greater danger to society than benefit

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Yeah. Your deep understanding of the subject has convinced me.

You go girl.

*snort*

BigWyo on April 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM

I’m not going to waste my time responding to that because you’re bringing up this skeet nonsense to obfuscate the real issue that guns are a far greater danger to society than benefit

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Guns Vs. Crime

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4