The Pensacola gunman bought his weapon legally, sources say
Source: CNN
(CNN)The Saudi officer legally bought the gun he used to kill three sailors at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida, according to two law enforcement sources.
One source said Mohammed Alshamrani purchased the weapon from a gun store earlier this year.
He obtained a hunting license, which allows a non-immigrant on a non-immigrant visa to purchase a gun, the source said.
Meanwhile, investigators have been trying to determine what motivated Alshamrani to open fire in a classroom building on Friday. He used a handgun and was killed after two deputies exchanged gunfire with him.
<more>
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/08/us/pensacola-naval-station-shooting-sunday/index.html
IronLionZion
(45,256 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,073 posts)IronLionZion
(45,256 posts)An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, certain official representatives of a foreign government, or a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business.
magicarpet
(13,935 posts).... brought in. As a US military base I would have thought it was the domain of military police exclusively.
I'm confused.
imavoter
(646 posts)I don't see where it said County deputies...
I can't speak for all of the military, but I know the Navy has a police force staffed by civilians. the base police.
Might have been them. I don't know if they work for the DOD directly or per the Navy, but anyway...
They are police officers and not military members.
The article could be a little more clear. Maybe we can find it somewhere else.
Edit: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pensacola-shooting-update-fbi-working-with-the-presumption-this-was-an-act-of-terrorism-2019-12-08/
I don't have an answer for you on that one. Maybe Florida does it differently? Or they could have been on base already. It says it was a classroom, so they would have been on base already, I'm assuming.
At first I was thinking maybe it was outside the gate.
Maybe someone else in the hive mind will know.
here: I found it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/06/nas-pensacola-shooting-deputies-responded-bravery-and-grit/4361171002/
"A spokesman for NAS Pensacola said that the Navy and local law enforcement have a partnership in place to do joint active shooter response drills and to assist each other during major incidents."
magicarpet
(13,935 posts)(snip)
....Alshamrani was killed after two
****deputies****exchanged gunfire with him.....
########
(snip)
.......****Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan ****told CNN that the FBI had secured the areas on base where the shooter was staying,.......
#######
Both snips above are from the CNN article attached to the DU Original Post. The article seems to be saying the perp was shot by deputies. Question is: were these deputies that shot the perp from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office. It surprised me that the county sheriff would be the primary first responder on federal property. I would expect the first responder to be the federal military police being this is a federal facility.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)1. Florida has no law generally requiring a background check on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer.
2. Florida law does not require firearms sellers to retain records of sales or report those sales to law enforcement, although a provision of Florida law requires records of handgun sales to be available for inspection by any law enforcement agency during normal business hours.
3. Did Alshamrani buy from two gun sources -- one on base and another off base?
4. FL law contributes toward military deaths.
Igel
(35,191 posts)And neither would raise flags. In this case, a licensed dealer apparently sold the gun (so a background check would have been run).
Background checks don't report back "success" they just report back "fail." Lack of "fail" means "sale approved." The background checker doesn't have complete knowledge, and can't, so all s/he can do is report whether there's something blocking the sale.
It's standard for nobody to report sales of guns to a central authority. There is no central registry. I guess if the background check folk kept records, that would almost sort-of count. (They'd have records of the check, but there's no need for the sale to be completed.)
Moreover, if the sale had been reported do we really want somebody looking them over and saying, "Gee, national origin. I'm gonna be *sure* to be extra vigilant with people from SA." That is discrimination based on national origin. Progressives used to dislike that kind of discrimination. Or maybe, "Hmmm ... Muslim name. Yeah, gotta look out for those Muslims." Shades of Trump.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)who goes "hunting" with a handgun?
IronLionZion
(45,256 posts)oh wait
Or at least that's what NRA supporters have always claimed.
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)Grins
(7,134 posts)jmowreader
(50,451 posts)I know people who ONLY hunt with handguns - .44 Magnum Ruger Redhawks and Smith & Wesson Model 29s. If you hunt in heavy brush, a rifle is nothing but a pain in the ass to deal with. A .44 Magnum will effectively kill deer and black bears.
jpak
(41,741 posts)Nope
jmowreader
(50,451 posts)EX500rider
(10,525 posts)jpak
(41,741 posts)But I'm pretty sure it's a picture of dumbasses who think they are hunting.
Tom Yossarian Joad
(19,211 posts)And shows pistols and hunters posing with their trophies so you are essentially correct,
EX500rider
(10,525 posts)Actually if they got the animal they were hunting for, they didn't "think they are hunting" but actually were hunting.
In case you are still confused:
hunt·ing
/ˈhən(t)iNG/
noun
1.
the activity of hunting wild animals or game, especially for food or sport.
jpak
(41,741 posts)It's not like these idiots are above "fudging" for the camera.
I won't look at it.
Nope
EX500rider
(10,525 posts)Hunting has been done with traps, clubs, atlatl's, spears, slings, slingshots, bows and handguns. And somewhere around the world still being done with most of those.
I won't look at it.
Nope
Sure, sure, wouldn't want contrary information now would you?
https://www.fieldandstream.com/best-handguns-deer-hunting/
jpak
(41,741 posts)to kill American Navy personnel.
They
Are
All
For
It
Just sayin'
imavoter
(646 posts)always have a side arm on themselves just in case...snakes, etc...
and hell, in Texas, the ferrel hogs are so mean, you shouldn't go hunting without a side arm.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)tote in town, irrational as it is. Commonly cited reason for public toting: One has to be prepared for the gangs in South Chicago, although they are nowhere near South Chicago and have never even been there.
jpak
(41,741 posts)I and my Texas native friends were not concerned by snakes or hogs.
And a deer rifle can't handle a feral hog better than a handgun? WTF
But I guarantee that more Texans are killed each year by handguns than by snakes and hogs in 2 decades.
Or more
Yup
But let's give foreign terrorists free access to handguns in FL.
Woo Hoo!
Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)Igel
(35,191 posts)And how you hunt.
In Oregon a lot of hunters shot at deer with a rifle. But they carried a handgun to dispatch any wounded animal.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)inwiththenew
(972 posts)You are prohibited from using necked rifle cartridges here. You can only use straight walled cartridges or shotguns. I have family who hunt and they mostly use shotguns but I know some who have taken a deer with 44 magnum. Still most people probably use a shotgun around here.
IronLionZion
(45,256 posts)So I doubt any of them would see the irony here.
NickB79
(19,113 posts)Looked up the regulations, and it was legal in 10mm, which he was using.
jpak
(41,741 posts)Do tell.
NickB79
(19,113 posts)Ballistically it's as powerful as a .357 Mag, and he had a 1X micro red dot in the rear sight slot, so accuracy was very good to 75 yd. Since it's shotgun-only in our area, that wasn't a handicap.
Sancho
(9,065 posts)Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and possess a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language; I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional or mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthiness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of your home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. The license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.) If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, lose, manufacture, modify, or inherit a gun; your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, are referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, or deemed unsafe by a LEO; you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a relicensing process.
James48
(4,416 posts)Its not limited to those with a hunting license.
By Florida law ( and federal law) , all you have to have is an airplane I-94 Arrival Record card showing you are in the country legally.
Miigwech
(3,741 posts)madville
(7,397 posts)The Supreme Court has ruled on this several times, Constitutional protections like the right to free speech, protection against illegal search and seizure and even the right to bear arms are extended to legal immigrants, not just citizens.
jpak
(41,741 posts)But it did protect a terrorist's "right to bear arms".
Yup
madville
(7,397 posts)See if they have freedom of speech, 4th amendment, or 2nd amendment rights on a military installation. The answer is no.
jpak
(41,741 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2019, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)Living on a ship, anyone in a position of authority over me could search my rack, lockers and personal belongings without a warrant. There are limits to free speech and the right to assemble. Also, freedom from billeting soldiers does not apply. Freedom of religion might also be curtailed.
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)They just contractually agreed to limit them while serving. Youll find most places of work allow searches of desks and lockers.
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)I did not work at the barracks I lived in while attending school nor did I work in the berthing compartment where I lived while serving on a ship. This is different then college dorm rooms which are generally considered a residence and are afforded the same protections against Fourth Amendment violations as a stand-alone house. A warrant is required to enter and/or search a dorm room unless consent is given or exigent circumstances present themselves.
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)Again, all part of the contractual agreement. Apartments can sometimes have inspections as agreed to in the lease. The highest protections are individual homes, where you are the owner.
The two examples listed, barracks and berthing spaces on a vessel are both provided as part of the employment agreement.
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)The terms state you agree to change status from civilian to member of armed forces and subject yourself to the military code of justice. Implicit is that you can now be subjected to inspections for equipment and good order that civilians dont have to endure.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)The article and the OP both mention that a couple of times.
"He obtained a hunting license, which allows a non-immigrant on a non-immigrant visa to purchase a gun, the source said."
marble falls
(56,358 posts)ck4829
(34,976 posts)Initech
(99,913 posts)Turbineguy
(37,207 posts)and for its intended purpose.
58Sunliner
(4,339 posts)ck4829
(34,976 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,362 posts)NRA gets their way so terrorists can legally buy guns.
The NRA used to be for sportsmen, hunters and gun safety.
Now it has become an industry owned shill for the sale of more guns and the enrichment of its leaders.