Jared Loughner DID NOT legally obtain a gun

Written By: PT on January 15, 2011 13 Comments

Wow, actual-fact based reporting. Somebody call Dupnick.

In news story after news story, I see the claim over and over again that Jared Loughner legally obtained his Glock 19 9mm handgun from Sportsman’s Warehouse on November 30th, 2010.

This is false. Jared Loughner obtained his gun by means of a felony.

Allow me to explain.

Sportsman’s Warehouse is a Federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). They are required to obtain an ATF form 4473 for every firearm transaction they have. This form captures personal data about the purchaser, and that data is then used to preform a NICS (National Instant Criminal System) background check.

Jared Loughner lied on this form.

Question 11 – E on the current ATF Form 4473 is as follows:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

ATF Form 4473

Loughner MUST HAVE answered “No” to this question in order to process the background check.

We know by the testimony of those close to him, Loughner was described as a “pothead” and was rejected by the US Army because of his admitted marijuana addiction.

ATF Form 4473 continues:

I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law and may also violate State and/or Local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b through 11.k is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm unless the person also answers “yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal laws, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law.

Sporstman’s Warehouse did exactly what they are supposed to do. Accept the application as sworn statements, and run the background check (NICS) in good faith. They did just that.

Jared Loughner is the criminal, and was the day he bought the gun.

More laws is not the answer. Criminals do not follow the law.

via Jared Loughner DID NOT legally obtain a gun. | Rob Doar . com.

13 Responses to “Jared Loughner DID NOT legally obtain a gun”

Rob Doar says on: 15 January 2011 at 4:14 PM

Thanks for the picking up the story.
Just my opinion says on: 16 January 2011 at 8:16 AM

It is not whether you win or loose, but how you lie on the form!!
Carolyn says on: 16 January 2011 at 8:22 AM

I know that reading a document before one signs it is not “politically correct” anymore, but maybe if Jared had read the paper before he signed it he would not have lied. (Really, who would lie about something like that just to buy a gun?)
So will this then have the effect of making everyone who applies for a gun, to have to take a drug test first?
I will if the welfare people have to also before they get thier check!
Stewie says on: 16 January 2011 at 12:18 PM

I do wish the media would pull on this thread. I don’t think they will, but that is their job. Get a copy of the form, bounce it against what we now know about Loughner, and ask why it was approved. There is a lot of knee jerk reaction to change gun laws, are the laws we have sufficient if they would just be properly used.
Rob Doar says on: 16 January 2011 at 2:38 PM

Excellent point Stewie… I have tried, but all the local outlets arent interested.

Guess the truth does not help their agenda.
PT says on: 16 January 2011 at 6:01 PM

Hey Rob, you are caught up in the battle big time. Old Media [the big three networks and print] vs. the new media [cable, the web and most-of-all, we bloggers]. All we can do is keep fighting the good fight. I have spread your very well written story to many other blogs. All we can do now is continue to bang the drum and confuse the liberals with pesky things called facts.
spikey27 says on: 17 January 2011 at 2:42 AM

This relates to something that has irked me for a long time.

Every time something happens, a murder, bombing, bank heist, or somebody’s cow farts, in practically no time an “official spokesman” runs his mouth declaring there is no:

conspiracy
terrorist plot
ill intent
or whatever.

If I wanted a guess, I’d ask someone who obviously doesn’t know what’s happening.

Why don’t these instant experts just keep their mouths shut until they learn something about the matter – like THE FACTS.
Michael Claridge says on: 17 January 2011 at 2:04 PM

Facts don’t sell, nor do they get votes. Spectacle, blame, violence, murder, and rallies sell, and also get votes. So guess what? That’s what we get. Pesky facts get in the way. Getting the right people all riled up – now that gets attention, but facts don’t.

Like momma said, “you get what you get, don’t make a fit.”
Stewie says on: 17 January 2011 at 9:15 PM

Rob

I read the New York Times profile of Loughner. In a few days, the New York times compiled a detailed accounting of the guy’s last few years including 50 pages of information in a PDF file. Police report after police report after police report. Many citing mental health issues. A school expulsion saying he would not be allowed back without a psychiatrist’s report deeming him not mentally ill.

Not only would he have had to lie about drug use based on what his friends said about him, he would have had to lie about mental health questions and brushes with police. How do all of these police reports not set a flag in the system somewhere?

The world is upside down when the Pima County Sheriff is pushing facts out of the way to serve his agenda while the New York Times gives a straight up analysis…kind of makes you scratch your head, doesn’t it?
Carolyn says on: 18 January 2011 at 7:22 AM

There is an obvious lack of respect for things these days, It ws evidient at the “rally” When the students didn’t know the difference between “reverence” and “rally”.
It becomes eveident with the relaxed way we check things out, and with the relaxed way we just say what is on our minds.
There was a time when one would think about what was being said, before opening the mouth.
As far as getting “red flags” I believe that i (an ordinary person) could get a detailed report from a number of internet services, for any person I would like investigated, so I agree with you Stewie, How did these reports not get on the “red flag” list.
If the media and offical spokespeople would wait for the facts, there would be less news.
how much fun would gossip be then?
Deborah says on: 20 January 2011 at 12:29 PM

Good point Todd but then you always dig for the truth.
Deborah says on: 8 April 2011 at 6:45 AM

If you want a gun you can get a gun.