Private Sale: Odessa Shooter

[ZX9RCAM]

Another non pay article:

https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Report-Law-enforcement-raid-in-north-Lubbock-14414817.php

Doesn't answer question.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I read an article last night that said they raided a house in Lubbock where a guy was suspected of manufacturing guns illegally, who also sold the gun to Ator.

Is it the WSJ story we are discussing?

 

[Renegade]

Cant read without subscription.
Can you post pertinent paragraph?

I do not have a subscription either, but it shows the video and first 2 paragraphs.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I do not have a subscription either, but it shows the video and first 2 paragraphs.

That's what I see too.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I opened the article on my GFs phone.
It does state that he was a dealer, and that he sold guns that he built.

I missed it when I read it before.

 

[candcallen]

Remember when Obama pushed the idea that there needs to be a limit on the amount of guns you sell before you are considered a dealer needing a FFL.?

How many guns you can build before you need a manufacturer license? Can you even sell a gun you built for your self? All this will be a target of any new legislation or regulatory changes.

 

[easy rider]

Is it the WSJ story we are discussing?

No, I don't have a subscription to WSJ. I can't remember which it was, but there are plenty out today.

 

[Renegade]

How many guns you can build before you need a manufacturer license? Can you even sell a gun you built for your self? All this will be a target of any new legislation or regulatory changes.

You can build as many as you like. The problem is when you build them with the intent to sell them, and then do sell them.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

No, I don't have a subscription to WSJ. I can't remember which it was, but there are plenty out today.

I answered above, #225.
Thanks.

 

[oldag]

I opened the article on my GFs phone.
It does state that he was a dealer, and that he sold guns that he built.

I missed it when I read it before.

I gave you a quote. What do you want? A screen shot??

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I gave you a quote. What do you want? A screen shot??

I didn't see it, what post?

 

[oldag]

I didn't see it, what post?

Post 198.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Post 198.

That looks like something that you just typed.

I guess I missed the quotation marks, and what source it was quoted from.

 

[oldag]

That looks like something that you just typed.

I guess I missed the quotation marks, and what source it was quoted from.

Nah, you didn't miss what was not there. Trying to avoid getting in trouble with the mods for copyright issues. The WSJ as source was provided a couple of posts later in response to your question. After that post, I thought it would be clear. Obviously not.

 

[roadkill]

intent to sell them So he assembles and sells, as long as they are BATF legal, nothing but a tax and license problem. Nothing different than the drivers with no license or insurance and we don't do anything about them!

Those crimes doesn’t typically get your wife murdered and your church burnt to the ground with you in it.

 

[GeorgeandSugar]

Just read the WSJ article. No mention him being a dealer. Sounds like he built the AR platform and sold it to shooter via private sale.

Article goes on to suggest illegal to manufacture and sell without a license. Not sure just what that means. No details on what constitutes manufacturing or how many that requires a license.

Sure hope it was not an 80% lower built. That would not be good.

Authorities suggest he bought gun parts and built AR and sold it to the shooter.

Still too early to say what is what. WSJ probably should not have written this article without more details or some confirmation. Speculation at this point and not good speculation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[candcallen]

You can build as many as you like. The problem is when you build them with the intent to sell them, and then do sell them.

I know. I was just making the point that they will be going after the legal definition of these items.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Just read the WSJ article. No mention him being a dealer. Sounds like he built the AR platform and sold it to shooter via private sale.

Article goes on to suggest illegal to manufacture and sell without a license. Not sure just what that means. No details on what constitutes manufacturing or how many that requires a license.

Sure hope it was not an 80% lower built. That would not be good.

Authorities suggest he bought gun parts and built AR and sold it to the shooter.

Still too early to say what is what. WSJ probably should not have written this article without more details or some confirmation. Speculation at this point and not good speculation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually, it does.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Cant read without subscription.
Can you post pertinent paragraph?

I’ve got a subscription...

“Authorities suspect the Lubbock man sold Ator the gun through a private sale.”

“It is unclear whether the man knew Ator was a prohibited person when selling him the rifle. If the gun dealer did in fact know that Ator was barred from buying guns, he could be charged with a federal crime. But authorities are also looking into whether the man was illegally selling guns.”

The Lubbock guy appears to have been under investigation separately from this incident. The language suggests LEOs are reasonably sure the connection exists, but doesn’t expound on that.

The article also refers to the Lubbock guy as both a dealer and a manufacturer, but only explains the gun show loophole as how Ator came into possession.

Logic problems:

There has to be evidence, whether it’s paper or digital that would tie the two together, on that topic, there is no comment from LEO. I can think of a couple scenarios that come to mind.

But if I’m illegally manufacturing ARs, I’m not buying anything direct from a company, whether it’s 80% or not. I’m going to make sure those things that are trackable have been washed through a private sale or two before I get them.[/B][/B]

 

[Shady]

and the moral of that story is smart crooks do not get nailed as often as the stupid ones.

I’ve got a subscription...

“Authorities suspect the Lubbock man sold Ator the gun through a private sale.”

“It is unclear whether the man knew Ator was a prohibited person when selling him the rifle. If the gun dealer did in fact know that Ator was barred from buying guns, he could be charged with a federal crime. But authorities are also looking into whether the man was illegally selling guns.”

The Lubbock guy appears to have been under investigation separately from this incident. The language suggests LEOs are reasonably sure the connection exists, but doesn’t expound on that.

The article also refers to the Lubbock guy as both a dealer and a manufacturer, but only explains the gun show loophole as how Ator came into possession.

Logic problems:

There has to be evidence, whether it’s paper or digital that would tie the two together, on that topic, there is no comment from LEO. I can think of a couple scenarios that come to mind.

But if I’m illegally manufacturing ARs, I’m not buying anything direct from a company, whether it’s 80% or not. I’m going to make sure those things that are trackable have been washed through a private sale or two before I get them.[/B][/B]