Reuters is carrying a story, repeated on The Hill’s website, claiming that neither of the Boston Bombers had a permit to own rifles or handguns (note that I think such requirements are unconstitutional, but in Massachusetts they exist).
Reuters goes on to state that “this will likely lead to calls for more guns laws.” Really? From whom…. Reuters correspondents? Let’s see: we have two terrorists who own weapons and ammunition in violation of EXISTING state laws, and likely local ordinances as well. They construct explosive devices without BATFE licenses against Federal law (or regulation). They plot (and carry out a plan) to MURDER AND MAIM dozens of people in public and shortly after this they carjack an SUV, murder a policeman and conduct a gun battle with police. Clearly following laws was not high on their priority list.
Add all this up and… we need more gun laws? Someone at Reuters needs a vacation.
Edit: Ordnance != ordinance. Relying on spellchecker doesn’t always work, sometimes the wrong word is still spelled correctly!
It looks like the reports of them having a long gun (other than a MA legal BB gun) are erroneous, and they may not have even had more than one handgun.
So for the one (or two) firearms we know they had, acquisition was illegal in MA, and if acquired outside of MA was illegal under federal law, and if (as has been surmised) acquired in NH, illegal in NH under NH XII/159.
Nevertheless, we need to make it illegaler.
Been through this crap with gun bigots/hoplophobes in particular and leftists in general so often I’m sick of it; everything you pointed out does not matter, as they all worship at the altar of ‘Just ONE MORE LAW, and there will be Peace!’.