Explosives were found "rigged on remote control cars" (in San Bernardino)

[darkangel218]

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:02 AM - Edit history (1)

No link, just saw the headline on CNN.

Also, per CNN, confirmed that the two shooters were "married".

[JonathanRackham]

1. Where did they get their bombs and guns?

California banned AWs years ago. Did they have handgun permits?. There's a bigger story that'll be interesting to see.

[darkangel218]

6. Illegally, obviously.

[leftynyc]

9. Not so

At least 2 of the guns were bought legally.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suspect-gun-purchase-20151202-story.html

[darkangel218]

10. It appears the two guns were bought legally by someone else

Not him (from what I understand). The other weapons were obtained illegally.

[leftynyc]

12. How fucked up is it

that anyone just hand over guns they've bought to anyone they please without paperwork or a background check. I put the blame for yesterday squarely on the terrorists - but they sure got a helping hand from the nra.

[darkangel218]

13. And from the "black market".

[Straw Man]

15. Yeah.

How fucked up is it

that anyone just hand over guns they've bought to anyone they please without paperwork or a background check. I put the blame for yesterday squarely on the terrorists - but they sure got a helping hand from the nra.

Pretty fucked up -- and also illegal in the state of California, which has had universal background checks for 21 years. No NRA helping hand there.

[leftynyc]

16. The guns were bought legally

and then handed over. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to happen and the nra has come out against universal background checks. Their hands are bloody.

[Straw Man]

18. And handed over illegally.

The guns were bought legally

and then handed over. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to happen and the nra has come out against universal background checks. Their hands are bloody.

You're missing the point. Yes, the NRA opposes UBCs. California doesn't give a crap -- they passed them anyway. It isn't exactly an NRA stronghold.

California's system doesn't "allow that to happen." The person who handed these weapons over did so in violation of California law. What does that have to do with the NRA? It could happen even if we had a federal UBC law in place.

[leftynyc]

23. The NRA is against every single

step that could help stop some of the violence. They're against universal background checks, they're against limits on firearms, they're against everything and do nothing but encourage the stockpiling of more and more guns. They USED to be all about gun safety - until they started getting more money from the gun manufacturers. You don't want to blame this crime on the NRA? That's your right - their fetish for guns is why we have a gun problem in the US. Unless you think it's just that Americans are inherently more violent than everyone else. Is that what you think?

[Mojorabbit]

30. It is not helpful to make such statements

(if we want change) that are not so. The laws were in place and people ignored them. These people did not care about the law so it proved useless in this case. Perhaps there is something else that can be done to prevent this particular problem. I do not know what it is.

[pnwmom]

35. The people didn't ignore the laws -- they circumvented them. Proving the need

for laws that are more difficult to circumvent.

[Straw Man]

31. Missed the point by a mile.

You don't want to blame this crime on the NRA?

No, because their opposition to universal background checks is absolutely irrelevant to a crime that happened in a state that has universal background checks. Why is that so hard to understand?

You can hate on the NRA all you want, but doing so in a case where their position is absolutely irrelevant just weakens your credibility.

[gratuitous]

33. How about this point?

What's the penalty for making a straw purchase (that is, one where the buyer who is eligible to purchase and own a firearm does so just to hand it over to a person who is not eligible to own that firearm)? Is it a small fine? A big fine? Is jail time involved? Is the straw buyer on the hook for any crimes committed by the ineligible end user? Is there a database to track what happens to a gun after it passes out of the original buyer's hands?

Although I have a sneaking suspicion I know the answers (and why things are the way they are), I'm happy to cure my ignorance and be 100% wrong.

[Straw Man]

37. That's not a point.

It's a question -- actually, a series of questions.

What's the penalty for making a straw purchase (that is, one where the buyer who is eligible to purchase and own a firearm does so just to hand it over to a person who is not eligible to own that firearm)? Is it a small fine? A big fine? Is jail time involved?

It's a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.

http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/

As far as actual prosecution and sentencing, I would imagine that it varies. In a high-profile case a few years ago in New York, the straw buyer got eight years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Webster,_New_York_shooting

Is the straw buyer on the hook for any crimes committed by the ineligible end user?

No, unless it can be proven that they were part of a conspiracy to commit these crimes.

Is there a database to track what happens to a gun after it passes out of the original buyer's hands?

It varies from state to state. In California, there is.

Although I have a sneaking suspicion I know the answers (and why things are the way they are), I'm happy to cure my ignorance and be 100% wrong.

Does that conform to your "sneaking suspicion"?

[gratuitous]

40. Thanks for your response

Are there any statistics from more recently than five years ago? Are there any studies that show how many straw purchases are made, and how many are prosecuted? 10 years and $250,000 sounds steep, but how many straw buyers actually run into those maximums? One person in New York doing eight years in connection with a particularly heinous crime sounds like a good bust, but if the person hadn't confessed and stuck to her story of the gun being stolen, I wonder if she would have been charged at all?

It seems that as long as the straw buyer is willing to stick to a lie, the law doesn't have much teeth. "I didn't know Twitchy McSquinteye was going to go on a rampage" is a poor excuse, but it seems likely to let the straw buyer off the hook. That would seem to be a promising avenue for Congress to make a new law for straw buyers: If the psychopath you bought for goes nuts, you're doing the time for his crime.

[Straw Man]

41. You're welcome.

I don't have anything more recent. This particular case was very high-profile, since it involved an ex-con who specifically targeted police and first responders. There was a concerted effort made to find out how he came by his guns, and it paid off.

Straw purchases don't generally get prosecuted vigorously. I personally would like to see aggressive targeting of gun runners who use straw purchasers to supply their networks. This should be a higher priority than the failed War on Drugs.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. That would have been illegal here in Oregon.

That is to say, it woudl have been illegal for whoever bought those guns to hand them over to that couple unless they had a background check performed. We have universal background checks here. I'd like to see more states take that step.

[Straw Man]

32. It was illegal in California too.

That is to say, it woudl have been illegal for whoever bought those guns to hand them over to that couple unless they had a background check performed.

Same in CA. It didn't seem to deter them.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. What are the consequences for violating this law?

[beevul]

36. Wrong question.

What are the consequences for violating this law?

Wrong question.


The right question is:

What would the consequences have to be, to matter to people intent on murder and mayhem?

[Straw Man]

38. See above post.

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7411340

[leftynyc]

39. I was thinking that

Just because these guns were bought legally doesn't mean the buyer had a background check. There are loopholes for gun shows you could drive a tank through. If it wasn't bought in California, all bets are off. States nearby are swiming in easy to get guns.

[Straw Man]

43. Loopholes.

Just because these guns were bought legally doesn't mean the buyer had a background check. There are loopholes for gun shows you could drive a tank through. If it wasn't bought in California, all bets are off.

A California resident cannot legally buy a firearm from an unlicensed individual in another state. That is a violation of Federal law. The so-called "gun show loophole" only applies to private sales between residents of the same state.

These guns may very well have been purchased out of state without a background check, but not legally. That's not a called a loophole; it's called a crime.

[leftynyc]

44. But we don't know

if the original buyer WAS a California resident. Do we?

[Straw Man]

45. No, we don't.

But we don't know

if the original buyer WAS a California resident. Do we?

If he was not, and he transferred the gun to a California resident somewhere outside the borders of California, then he broke Federal law. If he transferred the gun to a California resident somewhere inside the borders of California, then he broke both Federal and California law.

If he was a California resident, and he transferred the gun to a California resident somewhere inside the borders of California, then he broke California law but not Federal law.

[leftynyc]

46. Already know laws were broken

Now I'm trying to figure out if the original buyer went through a background check which aren't always required in some states under come circumstances.

[Straw Man]

49. You're not making any sense.

Already know laws were broken

Now I'm trying to figure out if the original buyer went through a background check which aren't always required in some states under come circumstances.

If the shooter is not the original buyer, the question of whether the original buyer had a background check is irrelevant. In every scenario I have described, his transfer of the weapon to the shooter was illegal. Straw buyers are people who can pass background checks and buy weapons for those who can't. The crime is the transfer to the "prohibited person."

[leftynyc]

50. You're not understanding me

They are saying the guns were bought legally. In NY (or CA) that would mean whoever the original buyer was went through a background check. Some states don't have those rules. I want to know if the gun was originally bought in one of those states that doesn't require a background check. I absolutely would find that relevant.

[Straw Man]

51. I think it's you who doesn't understand.

I want to know if the gun was originally bought in one of those states that doesn't require a background check. I absolutely would find that relevant.

Why?

The shooter was a California resident. He could not legally buy a gun without a background check, either inside or outside California. We have established that according to Federal and California law, the shooter either (a) had a background check or (b) acquired the guns illegally. I don't understand your fixation on the hypothetical straw purchaser and whether he had a background check. He could very well have passed one -- that's what straw purchasers do.

If I'm not understanding you, it's because you're not explaining yourself. How is the status of the original purchaser relevant? Please be specific.

[Lee-Lee]

25. California has UBC laws that prohibit that

It's been the law there for over two decades.

[Lurks Often]

24. The handguns were bought legally, the rifles are illegal under CA law

With the caveat that we don't have all the information yet, both rifles are illegal under CA law and it is a felony to posses them. The shooters were not old enough to have purchased and registered them in 2000 as required by CA law and the Smith & Wesson MP-15 was not manufactured until 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California


This was not a spur of the moment attack, they either planned this attack for months or intended to carry out a similar attack somewhere else and changed targets.

[Baclava]

2. Who are Syed Rezwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik?

Who are Syed Rezwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik?

"These were people that came prepared," he said. "There had to have been some degree of planning that went into this."

A bag believed to belong to the shooters was found inside the conference room. Inside, investigators found three three rudimentary explosive devices packed with black powder and rigged to a remote controlled car. The remote for the car was found inside the SUV where Farook and Malik were later killed, a law enforcement official said.

That means the pair planned to use the remote to detonate the explosives remotely, the official said. Either it didn't work because of distance or they didn't do it. Officials later rendered the explosive devices safe.

http://pix11.com/2015/12/03/who-are-syed-rezwan-farook-and-tashfeen-malik/

[6chars]

4. they must have been really mad about that workplace argument

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)

wonder where they got the idea and the know-how to rig these things. He was an environmental health specialist.

edited to correct his job - it was his brother with same first name who is a tax guy. bet he wishes he had a different name.

[darkangel218]

7. It was premeditated.

The work place argument was at best a catalyst, if that.

[polly7]

8. Or maybe purposefully started giving him an excuse to leave?

Seems strange to me too that they'd have everything ready to go for them both to be able to return as they did ... especially with the baby already being taken care of and the dentist/doctor? appt. excuse.

[darkangel218]

11. That is probably what happened.

Some of the wintesses described the shooter as "nervous" during the gathering. It was all planned.

[6chars]

14. The rigged car thing - where have I heard that before?

That hasn't been a nutjob thing in the US. Is there somewhere else this is common?

[Straw Man]

17. "The Dead Pool" -- Dirty Harry.

The rigged car thing - where have I heard that before?

[6chars]

19. Yes, that was it.

Let's be very careful to not think about other groups that have developed great expertise in such matters.

[Blue_Tires]

47. Call of Duty??

[6chars]

48. yes, that was it

although i am starting to suspect Mr Farook may have had friends elsewhere who were knowledgeable about such techniques.

[Yo_Mama]

22. But they had arranged for the mother to watch the baby in the morning,

so they must have known what they were going to do before the party. It couldn't even have been a catalyst.

I think it was an excuse.

They told the mother the woman had a doctor's appointment, so the entire thing was premeditated; I think they were hoping to get away and do a repeat.

[RayLib]

20. wonder where they got the idea and the know-how to rig these things...

Internet, or maybe the recent trip to Saudi Arabia (as reported by LA Times)

[6chars]

21. high school auto shop class?

[Buzz Clik]

3. Remote control car out? What is that?

[darkangel218]

5. Thanks. I posted from my cell.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

26. Just a disgruntled employee...

Yeah.

Right.

/sarcasm

[ck4829]

29. Because employees who are happy at their jobs target their coworkers at parties

[Rex]

42. Wow, they were going to do something even worse. Glad they were stopped finally.

The entire story about the couple and their baby sounds like something out of a movie. Just makes no sense as to why they did it. Also, how did the wife get into the country without any ID?