It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First image emerges of LAX shooter’s AR-15 rifle, raising disturbing questions

page: 2
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Hopefully the guy will live and we'll get some information out of him.
Are attacks against the TSA and other government employees going to be a new trend?




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

xrevxoltx

daryllyn
It's possible he could have gotten it at a gun show. We have one that's monthly in the area. You pay to get in and as long as you have the cash, you can walk out with whatever you want. No background check, no questions asked, no waiting period.

I'm sure there are gun shows in a number of states.


It doesn't work like that in California. You must transfer firearms through a federally licensed dealer, with a DROS (dealer record of sale), and state background check and a federal background check.

Private party transfers MUST be done in this way.


Is it not possible that he didn't get it in California or in his home state? Just because he lives in CA, and had this weapon, doesn't have to mean that he bought it there.
edit on 2-11-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


From the one photo of the weapon I saw, it looked more like a Mini-14 to me. I want to see a better pic though. It just didn't look like a AR to me.

I also found it funny that they said he had hundeds of rounds in twenty round boxes. What? He had time to reload his magazines? The guy was a nut job to be sure and wanted to off himself by suicide by cop in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Looks to me like the government and the MSM have the perfect combination, a right-winger, a NWO hater and possibly worst of all finally, someone who possibly purchased his weapon at a gun-show . As previously noted a person from a banned state as N.J. would find it difficult to legally buy any firearm.

So now begin the demonization of gun shows and all who attend !!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Very fishy indeed. So if USA today is reporting facts, then this firearm was very illegal in California. projectvxn is absolutely correct. I have personally seen someone in Arizona get turned down buying accessories for their firearm because their drivers license was California. The proprietor of the store was visibly mad at this. Online sellers of ammunition and accessories are extremely careful about what they sell and ship to California residences. As already brought up, the only way I could see it happening is through an out of state gun show parking lot kind of transaction, but even then, what about the USA today article.

Strange indeed.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Closeup of rifle

There's a close up of the rifle, taken from another thread.

AR-15, rear sight flipped down, pistol grip (illegal in CA), 30 round magazine (illegal in CA), flash hider (illegal in CA), adjustable stock (illegal in CA). The gun configured like that is not impossible to get, but would take quite some effort for someone living in California, as rifles off the shelf like that aren't sold in the state, and accessories like that are hard to find in the state through legal channels. Heck of a lot of effort for no real increased capability.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 

The FBI Agent making the criminal complaint identifies it as a .223 Smith and Wesson M & P 15. The article it's attached to says it was legally purchased in Los Angeles. I'd checked first on the "80% Lowers", but then had seen this posted earlier in the thread which made the 80% loophole moot, since it's a legal purchase anyway.

USA Today Story

A viewer with the raw court filing is at the bottom. The ID of the weapon is on page 2 of it, for reference.

Hope that helps.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
USA today says it's an "Assault Rifle" which is legally false unless the firearm was capable of fully automatic fire.

It's a rifle, pure and simple.

The features on the rifle means that no California seller would, in their right mind, sell a rifle equipped like that without worrying about the ATF coming in and shutting the place down. The lone round sitting by the magazine could have been used to operate the "bullet button". If that's the case, then the rifle certainly wasn't sold to him with the flash hider, pistol grip, adjustable stock, and magazine. The magazine, may have a follower that limits its capacity to 10 rounds, but one can't tell without actually trying to load it.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Also remember California is the land of Hollyweird. It probably wouldn't take too much effort to buy a "display piece" or "movie prop" gun that is filled with cement or otherwise made unworkable to get those particular bits that you want to mix and match on your working model. Unless California law has some means to restrict such items, it's the most likely loophole (other than illegal sources) there. (I'm going on a hunch, but maybe somebody could research this?)

As for properly sighting the gun to use it? This isn't warfare. This is a crazy person running into a crowded place where nobody is expecting it. At close range shooting from the hip is all that's needed to cause mayhem.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I think it's a LOT fishy.

However . . . we have deep sea monsters at the helm. What do you expect! LOL.

I don't expect the news or investigation to surface more than the others on the other shootings have . . . the MSM is very heavily controlled. And the full court press propaganda efforts of the PTB are quite skilled and effective.

The sheeple will continue to bleat passively as they, the Eloi shuffle into the Maws of the Morlach's for dinner.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


Well, we'll find out more soon. Technically, the rifle shouldn't exist in his hands. Yet, there it is. As far as Magazines? They aren't a challenge to buy in California. At least until 1/01/14.

Magazine "Repair Kits"

That one there will ship 30rd magazines for the AR-15 platform into California. They even note they'll convert a factory magazine chosen from their site into a repair kit for legal shipping.

80% Lowers

That's the 80% lowers I was talking about and have written at least one thread about here, myself. I think it's ridiculous that either thing is available this way to skirt Cali law, but they are.

If I had to guess on how he purchased an Smith & Wesson M&P? I really couldn't...but to note, again, there it sits and that part is now in the court record, officially.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well here is the rifle straight from Smith & Wesson's website. It is 100% California compliant making it in no way an "assault rifle" by their own definitions because it is compliant!

S&W M&P15 CA MODEL
edit on 11/2/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Thank you for looking that up. That does show what he had for the origin and specs.

* By the way, I've never called that an Assault weapon. It's not an Assault weapon, as we all agree.

An Assault weapon would require a Class III Permit in a state that allowed them (Like mine does) and California definitely doesn't. USA Today called it that. I'd almost quoted out of habit too..until I caught myself on the Media's habit of calling anything but a .22 rifle an "Assault" Rifle.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I wasn't directing that at you, sorry. It was written up as an "Assault Rifle" in the article and I was just clarifying that even by their loose standards of what qualifies as an "Assault Weapon" this doesn't cut it because it is compliant by their own rules.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I'd like to thank everyone for putting in some work to help answer some of these questions.

I do appreciate it.

Would have done more myself except I don't really have the time in my current circumstances.

So we have figured out that it is an M&P 15 supposedly CA compliant. Legally purchased.

It is technically not what the media typically refers to as an "assault rifle" as it is compliant under CA AWB.

So much for the law, eh?



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Oh, yeah.. Sorry, misread that. We definitely agree the media wouldn't know an assault rifle from a salt shaker. They do keep trying tho... Then again, it's not all their fault. Ever listen to the LAPD describe what they get at gun buy backs? Last year's got a couple AT-4 Anti-Tank rockets turned in....according to them. In reality, they were spent tubes and they cannot be reloaded. So, mantle pieces and decorations. Gotta love "authority" eh?
edit on 3-11-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

daryllyn

xrevxoltx

daryllyn
It's possible he could have gotten it at a gun show. We have one that's monthly in the area. You pay to get in and as long as you have the cash, you can walk out with whatever you want. No background check, no questions asked, no waiting period.

I'm sure there are gun shows in a number of states.


It doesn't work like that in California. You must transfer firearms through a federally licensed dealer, with a DROS (dealer record of sale), and state background check and a federal background check.

Private party transfers MUST be done in this way.


Is it not possible that he didn't get it in California or in his home state? Just because he lives in CA, and had this weapon, doesn't have to mean that he bought it there.
edit on 2-11-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)


Anything is possible. However, under federal law it is illegal for a resident of one state to purchase a firearm in another state, unless that firearm is shipped to an FFL in the buyer's state.

Like I said before, it's extremely easy to build an AR-15 like that for use in California. Everything can be ordered from the Internet, and all you're doing is waiting 10 days for the lower receiver.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Ah, I see. As someone who doesn't live in CA, and only recently reading up on it, it seems as though certain combinations of accessories are permissible, while other are not. Odd.

Anyway, yeah, that rifle very well may be legal. My understanding is that magazine capacity is one of the bigger deciders on what you can or can't have on your rifle.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Galvatron
Ah, I see. As someone who doesn't live in CA, and only recently reading up on it, it seems as though certain combinations of accessories are permissible, while other are not. Odd.

Anyway, yeah, that rifle very well may be legal. My understanding is that magazine capacity is one of the bigger deciders on what you can or can't have on your rifle.



As long as you're using an "off-list" lower receiver and a 10 round magazine that requires "tools and time" to remove, all so-called "assault weapon" features are permissible. This includes flash suppressor, telescoping stock, pistol grip, vertical foregrip, bayonet lugs, etc.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Occam's razor= there is this thing.....called the "black market"....

But the main lesson here is...

PUNISHMENT DOES NOT DETER CRIME.
LAWS DO NOT DETER CRIME.

FACT.

It infuriates me more and more every day that our society still tolerates and/or supports the state/government and it's tyrannical, idiotic laws.

We don't need another revolution (which history has taught us, ALWAYS leads to more of the same- at best- or more often, to a more corrupt, aggressive, tyrannical government)

IT'S TIME FOR AN EVOLUTION.

edit on 3-11-2013 by ltinycdancerg because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join