A stranger handed me an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle Monday afternoon in a South Burlington parking lot. I handed him an envelope stuffed with $500 cash. We filled out no paperwork and completed no background check. He had no idea who I was nor what my intentions were, and he did not ask. Nine minutes after I met the man, I drove away with the sort of weapon used 39 hours earlier to slaughter 49 people in an Orlando, Fla., nightclub.
In Vermont, home to the nation’s most permissive gun laws, everything I did was perfectly legal.
My unexpected gun purchase began with a simple Google search for “AR-15 Vermont.” The top result, armslist.com, provided plenty of local options. I emailed one seller at 7:33 a.m. Monday and asked whether I could buy his weapon that day. Over the next several hours, we exchanged 18 emails.
The gun, he wrote, was in “fair condition” and needed only a $30 extractor arm. He said he’d cut the listed price by $50 and show me how to install the part.
“Does it shoot as-is?” I asked. “Hoping to buy ASAP. You’re in Burlington, right?”
By 10:11 a.m. we had settled on a plan.
“I would probably have to meet around 5ish, if that is alright. And how about the parking lot by Five Guys right off of Route 7?” the seller wrote, adding a few minutes later, “Also, I’m going to need you to bring photo ID.”
“Would it be OK if we skipped that step?” I replied.
“If you are visibly of-age then yes,” he wrote.
A little after 5 p.m., a young man wearing a blue flannel shirt, Carhartts and Timberlands approached me outside the Five Guys, which is sandwiched between a Chipotle and a GNC in a busy shopping center next to Interstate 189. The seller was tall and rail-thin, with short blond hair and stubbly facial hair.
“Hey, how are you?” he asked.
“Good. How are you?” I said as I shook his hand. “Nice to meet you.”
The man pointed to his car across the parking lot and suggested I move mine to the space next to it. He opened his rear passenger-side door, apologized for the car’s messy state and unzipped an olive green carrying case. The weapon was a generic AR-15, with a Radical Firearms mid-length barrel, an Aero Precision lower receiver and a Walther PS 22 red-dot sight. It came with three empty 30-round magazines.
The gun was no different than those used to kill 26 people in Newtown, Conn., 12 in Aurora, Colo., and 14 in San Bernardino, Calif. Police initially said the Orlando gunman used an AR-15 but later clarified that it had been a similar weapon: a Sig Sauer MCX.
“Really fun. Really easy to shoot,” the seller said as he showed me how to use it.
A young woman with blond hair and glasses sat in the front passenger seat. She remained silent and only once looked back at me and the seller, flashing a friendly smile.
“It’s so popular and easy and fun to shoot [because] it’s just about the most straightforward thing you could ask for,” the man said. “You know?”
“Well, that’s what I’ll need,” I said.
He handed me the weapon, the barrel of which protruded from the carrying case. I placed it in the backseat of my car and covered it with a jacket.
“Very good,” I said, handing him the envelope of cash. “Smaller bills. So, I hope that’s OK. Give it a look.”
“No worries, dude,” he told me. “I trust it’s all there.”
We shook hands. I got in my car and drove away.
Five hours before I bought the AR-15, I dropped by Burlington’s King Street Center, where several of the state’s top politicians and law enforcement officials were holding a press conference. Twenty minutes into the event, I asked Gov. Peter Shumlin — Vermont’s most powerful and uncompromising gun rights supporter — whether the previous day’s massacre had changed his views.
“No, because I believe you need a 50-state solution,” the third-term Democrat responded. “If you’re going to commit some heinous act, and you can buy the gun in New Hampshire, you’re gonna go get it in New Hampshire.”
I continued: “But right now in Vermont, any one of us here could walk down the street and get the same gun that was used in this attack, without any kind of background check at all. The person could do that if they have a criminal record, if they have a history of mental illness, or they could be on a terrorist watch list. If someone did that in Vermont, would that—”
The governor interjected.
“Paul, you’re as aware of the current law as I am, and it’s not quite as simple as you suggested,” he said. “But all I can say is: You know where I stand.”
Indeed, Shumlin’s position has barely budged since the start of the mass-shooting era. Even as he’s argued that Vermont should lead the way on labeling genetically modified organisms and limiting carbon emissions, he has cautioned against joining the 18 states that require federal background checks before some or all private gun sales. Last year, he threatened to veto a modest gun-control bill until it was diminished to what he called a “shadow” of its former self.
In that same period, other Vermont pols have evolved.
After the July 2012 shooting at an Aurora movie theater, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vt.) told the Addison County Independent that gun laws should be left to the states. Five months later, following the massacre at Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, all three began to reverse course — eventually embracing federal legislation that would ban assault weapons and mandate universal background checks.
Sanders, who was elected to Congress in 1990 after the National Rifle Association turned on his opponent, seemed to support the bill with some reluctance.
“If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen,” he told me in a March 2013 interview.
Following a shooting last December at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic, former transportation secretary Sue Minter became the first gubernatorial candidate in recent memory to call for universal background checks in Vermont. Fellow Democratic candidate Matt Dunne declined to follow suit. Days later, after the San Bernardino shooting, he said he’d consider all options. In April, he endorsed universal background checks.
Former state senator Peter Galbraith, who entered the race in March, also supported them. On Monday, he upped the ante, calling for a ban on “weapons of war,” such as the AR-15. Minter, who had previously dodged questions about an assault-weapons ban, quickly followed Galbraith’s lead. Dunne’s campaign repeatedly refused to disclose his current position on such a ban.
Both Republican gubernatorial candidates, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott and retired Wall Street banker Bruce Lisman, said Monday that they continued to believe Vermont should enact no new gun laws.
At the King Street Center, some politicians were still finding their footing. Asked whether he supported universal background checks or an assault-weapons ban, Chittenden County State’s Attorney T.J. Donovan said, elliptically, “I support responsible gun ownership.” Asked again, he said, “I’m open to the discussion,” adding that enforcement of existing laws should come first.
Donovan, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, approached me after the press conference to amend his answer. All those buying firearms in Vermont should be subject to a background check, he said, “with the caveat of the efficacy of it.”
Asked what on Earth that meant, Donovan dropped the caveat.
Forty minutes after I bought the AR-15, I parked at the Burlington Police Department’s North Avenue headquarters and walked five blocks to Church Street. I left the gun in my locked car.
More than 1,500 people had flooded the downtown pedestrian walkway to mourn those killed and wounded Sunday at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando. They marched from the First Unitarian Universalist Society church to Burlington City Hall, some in silence and some singing. Family members, friends and strangers locked arms and carried rainbow flags and handmade signs.
“Love, not hate,” one sign read.
“We are Orlando,” read another.
Sanders, whose presidential campaign was coming to an end, marched beside his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, and Pride Center of Vermont executive director Kim Fountain. U.S. Secret Service agents swarmed around them, hands near their pockets, and a depleted contingent of national reporters walked alongside. As Sanders passed Burlington City Hall, a group of people in front of him sang the 1969 antiwar ballad “One Tin Soldier.”
“Go ahead and hate your neighbor. Go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of heaven. You can justify it in the end,” they sang. “There won’t be any trumpets blowing come the judgment day. On the bloody morning after, one tin soldier rides away.”
The congregation of mourners turned right on Main Street and amassed in City Hall Park. Community leaders, led by Fountain, Sanders and former state representative Jason Lorber, mounted the city hall steps and stood in the early evening sun, next to an American flag, a Vermont flag and a rainbow flag.
“Tonight we want to stand in solidarity with one another,” Fountain told the crowd. “We want to stand against the hate speech and the narrow-mindedness that led to this shooting in the first place. We must meet violence with compassion.”
Sanders followed Fountain to the podium and waved to the crowd. Thirty-three years earlier, when he was mayor of Burlington, he had called on the board of aldermen to formally recognize the city’s first gay pride march. Now, as a presidential candidate, he was there to mourn with the community.
“It says a whole lot about our great city to see so many people out here this evening,” he said, his eyes squinting from the sun’s glare.
Sanders offered his condolences and reminded his audience that while the Orlando gunman may have been Muslim, “To blame an entire religion for the acts of a single individual is bigotry — pure and simple.” Then he broached the topic of gun violence — perhaps the only issue on which rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had run to his left.
“All of you know that the weapon used in Orlando was legally purchased,” he said. “And it is time for us to really rethink something that I have believed for decades: whether or not it makes sense for people today to walk into a store and purchase a military-style weapon, which has one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to kill people.”
Shortly after the vigil, I met Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo and Deputy Chief Jannine Wright in another parking lot for another gun exchange. This one, too, was perfectly legal.
Outside the department’s headquarters, I unlocked my car and opened the trunk. Del Pozo pulled the weapon out of its carrying case and inspected it.
“This is a, uh, AR-15,” he announced, holding it in both hands. “This is the civilian version of the military M16 — the nation’s assault rifle — used by the infantry in the Marines. This is similar to the weapon I used when I was in the Army National Guard as an infantry officer.”
In New York City, where del Pozo had spent much of his career, what I’d done would have been illegal. The chief seemed as if he were still adjusting to Vermont’s nearly nonexistent gun laws.
“We’re beginning to see some of the consequences of access to these types of weapons,” he noted.
A few minutes later, Lt. Dennis Duffy, the department’s firearms instructor, joined us in the parking lot.
“How much did you pay for it?” he asked.
“Five hundred dollars,” I responded.
“You got a deal!” he said.
I followed the officers into BPD headquarters and watched as Duffy called in the serial number to determine whether the weapon had been reported stolen.
“Dennis, the part that irks me is there was no background check,” del Pozo said, pointing in my direction. “He could be a jihadi or a right-wing Aryan guy or — he could work for [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. I mean, he does have a beard.”
The radio crackled.
“All clear,” said an officer who had run the serial number through the National Crime Information Center database.
At del Pozo’s suggestion, I turned over the gun to the Queen City Police Foundation, which would give it to the department for use in training — so the BPD might be prepared if it ever encountered a mass shooting. I signed a receipt and walked out to my car.
On my way home, I stopped at Pearl Street Beverage to buy a six-pack of beer. The clerk, I noticed, was asking for identification from each of his customers.
When I checked my inbox later that night, I saw that the man who’d sold me the AR-15 had emailed shortly after I’d left the Five Guys parking lot.
“I don’t know you, but I trust that you have been watching the news,” he wrote. “Please don’t make me regret selling that firearm. It was good to meet you, and hope it was just what you were looking for.”
Related Stories
This article appears in Jun 15-21, 2016.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I find it interesting that the Police Chief decided to liken the AR-15 to the type of gun that he used in the National Guard, rather than to the standard issue ‘patrol rifle’ that all of his BPD officers carry. Very disingenuous to make that parallel while suggesting that the public should forego access to such a weapon.
Wow. Excellent piece. Thank you for this terribly troubling reality check, Paul.
Very important piece of writing.
“He could be a jihadi or a right-wing Aryan guy or — he could work for [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. I mean, he does have a beard.” -quote from the Officer…
Isn’t it true that most of the mass killings have been white young men from U.S. soil?
I know the point of the article is the ability to purchase a ridiculous firearm, this just caught my eye…
Not sure what your point is. The last several shootings had rifles purchased from gun dealers with back ground checks. Just like Orlando. Hell in Orlando the pos was investigated by the FBI and under went several background checks which proves that background checks do basically nothing to keep us safe. Maybe we should focus on the criminals and terrorists that use the guns instead? Are you going to go buy some heroin next Paul?
And with over 70% or so of Vermont households owning at least one firearm, including this type of civilian rifle, purchased with our current gun laws, the state is still the safest in the nation.
What’s your point with this, Heintz? Catering to the party line?
As if this is some kind of incredible piece of under-cover investigative sting operation or something. Do you know how many Vermont gun owners are reading this piece and laughing at you right now?
Very informative article in that it explains how a firearm can be purchased in the real world. But your article does not explain how someone with criminal intent would not be more than willing to violate the law in order to acquire a weapon. If you’re prepared to kill dozens of strangers, you probably won’t hit a moral roadblock when it comes to violating gun regulations. Nor does it explain how various gun control regulations that have been proposed would have — again, in the real world — actually prevented any of the mass shootings we have experienced the last several years. A complex issue with no easy, pat answers — much to our politicians’ chagrin.
You can stop at any gas station and buy enough gas to kill hundreds of people. The largest mass killings are not committed with guns; there are infinite options; guns are not the problem but calls for gun control are the main driver of gun sales to civilians.
The only way to take guns away is to do it by force. Waco, Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma city were the consequences of aggressive ATF attempts to enforce firearms laws.
People feel insecure after terrorist attacks. It is reckless, for the Left, to use these attacks to ramp up calls for gun control. When you tell insecure people that your solution is to disarm them they rebel, their anxiety increases and they buy more guns because they do not trust there leaders to protect them.
Quit using gun control as a red herring to distract the public from the administration’s failure to ensure public safety. Do what needs to be done to eliminate Islamic terrorism and a more secure public will be open to sensible gun control laws.
To those questioning his point since the Orlando shooter had legally purchased his gun with a background check:
The point is that gun control needs to be a 50-state issue, as stated in the article. If Florida ups their gun control, what’s going to stop the man from driving to VT for a quicker purchase.
To people who say that criminals are just going to find their weapons no matter what. That’s like saying, “Well I buy my kids sweets because they’re going to find a way to get them at friends’ houses and schools anyways.”
You’re basically saying – Criminals will find weapons anyways, so let’s just make it easy for them.
“Paul, you’re as aware of the current law as I am, and it’s not quite as simple as you suggested,” he said.” Hi Paul, I certainly hope you email this entire well done (albeit scary) article to Gov. Shumlin to his private email. I have to say, that I just get unhappier and unhappier with this man and I think this finally clinched my total dislike. Hate to say but I have started calling him Gov. Scummy.
I would have resold the gun; not donated it.
The article suggests that what happened here was something that COULD have been a nefarious action of some sort, since you met somewhere and made the deal out of the trunk of a car. In other words, the spirit of the article suggests that the seller (and you) may have been acting in a way that is less than up-front. A clandestine meeting to get guns, possibly to cause harm on others.
Please keep in mind that Vermont law mandates that YOU, the buyer, whether through a dealer or the trunk of a car, maintains the responsibility to be sure the seller is acting in a lawful way. IF YOU ARE NOT 100% SURE whether the seller is acting in a way that has 100% good intentions and you proceed with the transaction as you did, then you are acting against the law.
You did not know this guy and you did not make sure he was not committing a crime by selling you what may have been a stolen firearm. If that is the case, then you, Paul Heintz and Seven Days by condoning this piece, may have just broken the law.
You may need to speak with a gun law lawyer to make sure you are not in trouble by having done this transaction and admitting to it in print. And, no, the first Amendment can’t get you out of this. Perhaps you got the police officer in trouble, too since he should have known enough to ask the question.
Seven Days limits comments to 300 words, so this comment is going to be a little broken up…
PART1 –
OK, First, if we look at the issue of “Assault Weapons” it is a red herring. The reality, is that based on the FBI’s own numbers, you are more likely to be beaten to death than you are to be killed with a semi-automatic rifle, or, any rifle for that matter. The issue is handguns. 98% and change of all homicide deaths are from handguns. Anyone who tries to tell me they are anti-gun and immediately starts banging on about the need to ban assault weapons makes it instantly obvious they do not have a good grasp on the issue. Yes, I get it, an AR-15 makes it easier to kill many people in a crowd, it is scary looking gun. The one and only salient issue with the AR-15, is that it accepts a detachable magazine. If we were to ban the AR-15 and take them all off the street tomorrow, the same mass shooting could still happen the next day, why, because the non-military looking Ruger Ranch rifle, or for that matter any number of semi-automatic weapons capable of accepting a detachable magazine could be used just as easily.
Part 2
Somewhere between 27K and 32K people will die by firearms this year. Half of these will be people who take there own lives. This leaves us with about 15K who will be the victims of a firearms related homicides, accidents, or killed by police. Maybe a couple hundred of these fatalities will be caused by persons with a semi-automatic rifles. Thousands will be caused by handguns. This mass shooting thing is terrible, but, it tends to direct our focus and keep our attention on these horrific 1 time events which prevents us from looking at and understanding the totality of the issues we need to address as a society. The issue is not just guns. It is Guns, mental health, poverty, education…
There are simply no objective scientific studies looking at firearms use across the spectrum in our society. The closest thing we have to a real objective study is the data gathered by the FBI and the census bureau for the department of justice which indicates firearms are used defensively about 200k times a year and about 15K people are murdered each year with firearms. We simply do not have an intelligent, nuanced, dispassionate understanding of this issue. Crafting intelligent solutions requires a solid understanding of the issue being addressed. One more time, we really need to stop reacting emotionally and instead seek an intelligent understanding of the issue that is built on a foundation of real data which will facilitate the sort of proactive action that will, hopefully, limit tragedies like Orlando and Sandy Hook. To support my point here, let me offer you “The Patriot Act.”
Part 3
While those who would like to see more regulation are obviously very passionate and committed to making our society a safer better place, they often speak with such a profound lack of understanding about firearms that it not only infuriates gun owners, worse, it makes it impossible for the gun owner to take the speaker seriously. I am not talking about things like confusing magazines with clips, I am talking about a fundamental lack of understanding about how firearms work, what they can and can not do. Gun Rights supporters tend to come across as insensitive asses who appear to have no grasp on how truly horrific these mass shootings are which completely infuriates those seeking stricter regulation of firearms and leaves them feeling vulnerable and under attack. There is so much hyperbole and hostility on both sides that it creates a situation where it becomes impossible to communicate and seek compromise. And for me, that is the part I find most infuriating…
For Sanders comment on gun control: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Every mass shooter in recent history either passed a background check or stole their weapon. Not a single gun control measure that the the gun control crowd has put forward would have stopped a single one of these incidents.
California is a gun control advocates wet dream. Their laws have long since wandered into the unconstitutional realm, yet San Bernadino happened. It is nearly impossible for a civilian to get a gun like an AR-15 in France but Paris happened.
Perhaps it’s time we start looking at solutions that might actually work rather than pointing at the scary black gun that most gun control advocates know next to nothing about.
Paul Heintz I would love to sit down with you and show you the difference between a real machine gun and a semi automatic firearm.
As you know I am a person who is an expert on the mechanics of them. I not only understand the difference but also the history of the development of both types.
I am open to doing this at any time or place and would welcome any other reporter to also be there.
If you want to do it please call me
Ed Cutler
President
Gun Owners of Vermont
802 463 9026
OK, why are you people blaming the Firearm when it’s the person using it! This is not a gun problem it is a people problem, not only that it was a terrorist act. American has fallen so much because we are more concerned about others feelings and having a safe place. PEOPLE WAKE UP ITS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF! Nothing in life is fair or perfect. I’m so sick of everyone blaming everyone else and also inanimate objects. We are talking gun control not how to stop these sick SOB’s REALLY GROW UP PEOPLE!
So what? A Vermonter bought a gun from another Vermonter. Why is this big news?
Ahhh, Brien…..the old “guns don’t kill people, people do” myth. If that’s the case, you must think America is filled with the worst people in the world. After all, we have the most guns, and the most gun killings…..since guns protect, we should be the safest right? According to NRA logic anyway.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth/
Well JD, outside of the gun control zones of places like Chicago and DC The United States has very few gun related homicides.
Two adults made a legal firearms transaction, somehow let’s insert all kinds of evil “gun-nut” drama in to it, and you wonder why those of us that support gun ownership, detest the narrative.
You know in a free society, there will always be people that will use that freedom to their own means and against others. Absolutely no way you stop that it’s human nature, and the freer the society the more it gives people a chance to behave badly. That is no reason to limit people in their choices.
You’re a big drug legalization supporter right Paul, happy to gloss over all the downsides of it right? Personally people smoking pot and driving cars scares the living hell out of me. A lot more than the possibility of someone shooting up a bar I in, but THAT discussion about curtailed freedoms is verboten right? Cause well liberal and pot and Vermont duh, how dare you question that.
So how about less stories that are about your agenda and a little more investigative journalism about things that really affect all of us.
The Charlie Hebdo attack occurred in France who has extremely strict gun control. New laws won’t stop terrorists.
A typical AR-15 is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle. That same caliber is available in a multitude of other semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that just so happen to not look as scary. What you have here is a cosmetic difference, that’s all.
It’s like taking my 2013 Hyundai Elantra, slapping some racing car stickers all over it and calling it a race car.
Can you please stop using the tragedy that happened in Florida as an excuse to push a political agenda? Stop the “it’s all about the gun, stupid…” thing.
This is Vermont, folks. Firearm ownership, with the laws that already exist in this state work great here. Please knock off the gun control crap already.
This is just remarkably good reporting. If you ever wonder, why do we need newspapers?, this kind of thing is the answer.
Would like to see a similar type story on two additional topics.
1. How dangerous are the mentally ill people walking up and down Church St. who go without meds or supervision?
2. Religious freedom is not an automatic cloak for evil. How do Islamic Terrorists function inside the Muslim community and what barriers exist that keep Muslims from turning in extremists? For example is it similar to the Bishop protecting priests that are pedophiles?
Guns don’t kill people. Chuck Norris kills people.
How can any one miss the point of this article? Hey drug dealers, good news! If you want to set up shop in Vermont you can now remove that nasty and dangerous practice of bringing guns in from out of state! Buy local! That guy did not ask because he did not care who you were or what you were going to do. He made a profit, I’d imagine. Simply business. What is this, the Wild West? WTF is wrong with people!
So you intentionally set up a legal gun buy to make it look sinister. Great job, you are a attention seeking dipshit. Look at me look at me!!! Over here!!! Look what I can do!!!! Asshat.
If the gun you are showing in the picture is indeed what you bought – congratulations! – you’ve got a great deal. Now take it to the range, shoot it, learn about it. Better yet, buy a pistol in a similar transaction, shoot it, and realize that there is no difference in lethality between “the black tool of murder, just like terrorist X has used in Afghanistan” and common semi-automatic pistol equipped with a $10 30rd magazine.
What you describe with such degree of horror is perfectly legal is many US states – most of which have extremely low homicide rates – as well as in Switzerland, which has no background checks for person-to-person transfers as well as bolt action rifles and most shotguns. Yet Switzerland in particular has lower homicide rate than US homicide rate where guns are not involved.
yellow sensationalist propaganda, using a tragedy to further your bloomberg funded anti-vermont agenda. you should be ashamed,. you are certainly discredited outside Burlington,. ask that cop why he’s not still in new york,..
I have owned guns and hunted since I was 12, but this is insane. I would never even get close to the NRA. I like my sporting arms, down to only a couple, but weapons of war, really ?
It would appear that many people completely missed the point of this article … it’s simply far too easy to purchase weapons in Vermont.
Lone wolf terrorist’s, as well as terrorist groups such as ISIS, will always find ways to carry out their agendas. We didn’t consider banning pressure cookers after the Boston marathon bombings. Likewise we would never consider eliminating domestic air travel to avoid events like 911.
In a nation where we are free to experience anything we like…cook a meal in a pressure cooker or take a flight to some place we have dreamt of seeing, we should be free to own a firearm as stated in the 2nd ammendment.
To place the blame of terrorism events on the tool used is taking our eye off the proverbial ball. Radicalized individuals and mental illness are the true culprits, and as such should be the focus of our energy.
So you bought it in South Burlington and turned it over to BPD. Why not SBPD in the city where the transaction took place?
In France Terrorist killed 120 people,the Government went after the terrorist. In the US a Terrorist kills 49 and the Government goes after an item, them the law abiding?
Henry Parro
This is horribly chilling. The author gave lots of indications to the seller that he wanted it right away, that he had an intended use in mind and wanted to make sure it would work, that he didn’t want to disclose his identity to the seller, and yet the seller was more interested in getting $$$ than not going ahead with a sale to a buyer I wouldn’t sell a used car to. And no record check needed to buy the AR-15.
7:33-10:11 am deal arranged following inquiry: “Does it shoot as-is? Hoping to buy ASAP.” Plan in place despite buyer declining to provide ID, “Would it be OK if we skipped that step?”
5 pm same day, sale at 5 Guys parking lot goes ahead despite buyer telling seller, “Well, that’s what I’ll need” after being assured by seller that the AR-15 is a straighforward weapon.
Jeez, Louise all this happening less than 48 hours after the slaughter in Orlando.
“We didn’t consider banning pressure cookers …” I, for one, am not talking about banning weapons such as the one mentioned in this article. I am, however, saying background checks shouldn’t bother anyone. I’m sick and tired of hearing how everyone’s Second Amendment rights are being threatened but a background check for a weapons purchase is no different than a background check when someone applies for a job or applies for a loan.
Why are gun owners and pro NRA people so obsessed with a background check (which in no way threatens your Second Amendment rights)? Believe me, if the government truly wanted to take away your weapons, they would do so, and please spare me the “they’ll have to pry it from my fingers” macho nonsense.
Hey he should do the same thing with a drug buy and look how many people die from drug use , but it’s better to to trash guns!!!!!!!!!!!
The Orlando shooting was not the largest mass shooting in American History, Wounded Knee, where the shooters were the American Government was. Yes Our Government shot basically civilians. Did you know that it was pretty much impossible to buy ammo for the gun you bought due to the fact that Obama, DOJ and Homeland Security bought 1.2 billion of them (shells) for “Domestic use”. All manufactures making ammo were selling it to the government and you couldn’t have bought any for that gun you were so proud of. Why on earth would they need 1.2 billion shells for what you are labeling bad boy guns ? Why should the same government that mass slaughtered at Wounded Knee need that much fire power to use against it’s own citizens. You think it’s ok for them to have that and every citizen should go with little to no ability to protect themselves from that fire power and government’s non ability to make good sound decisions. Look at what we have running for President, Trump is Trump, Hillary is a career criminal and Bernie would fit in fine in Venezuela or Cuba, and we shouldn’t ever need to be able to protect ourselves against who could imagine what ? The more their population density (Muslim) the more the hate of every non Muslim, American, Westerner, LGBT, and everyone else by Islam. England, France, Spain, Africa, now Germany have all learned the hard way and now don’t know what to do. And you wish to bring absolutely all of that here to Vermont and then not allow us to protect ourselves ? Your motto should be,,, Green Mountain Liberals, Striving for the Great Green Purpose of Harm.
“Hey he should do the same thing with a drug buy and look how many people die from drug use , but it’s better to to trash guns!!!!!!!!!!!”
Poor analogy. Drug overdoses are self-inflicted fatalities. Innocent people randomly being murdered while sitting in a theater, night club, church or school are not. See the difference there, Sparky?
I don’t believe Paul’s article “trashed guns” at all. He pointed out (quite well, I believe) the simplicity of buying a weapon in Vermont (and too many other states).
“Did you know that it was pretty much impossible to buy ammo for the gun you bought due to the fact that Obama, DOJ and Homeland Security bought 1.2 billion of them (shells) for “Domestic use”. All manufactures making ammo were selling it to the government and you couldn’t have bought any for that gun you were so proud of.”
FALSE. U.S. House candidate James Buchal claimed the government “is stockpiling hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for domestic use.”
A government report indicated that the federal Department of Homeland Security, as of October 2015, had an estimated 159 million rounds in inventory, down from 178 million rounds in April 2013 and 193 million in November 2014. The report also found that DHS and Department of Justice — which employ 80 percent of the federal government’s armed personnel — have steadily decreased ammunition purchases since 2009. Projected purchases by DHS for this year will be the lowest in more than five years. Estimated ammunition inventories for both agencies also continue to fall.
By the way, Buchal lost by nearly 50 points.
Seven Days has $500 to buy a prop ?
Guns don’t kill people . People who never would be able to kill, or kill so many without a gun , kill people .
At no point in history has humanity ever turned away from the use of violence to carry out the will to dominate, and at no point in history since our first ancestors discovered that sticks and stones do, in fact, break bones have words ever sufficed to turn their blows. To expect that we can eradicate arms is naïve and dangerous, The history of arms is not a history of the strong conquering the weak, but the reverse. Weapons enable the weakest among us to defend themselves against the aggression of the physically and politically powerful.
The fact that some feel secure enough to say that the will forgo the use of arms does not indicate we have evolved beyond the impulse to dominate. It is an indication only that we have abdicated our moral duty to personally confront the problem of when lethal force is justified. It is an indication only that “guns”, somewhere in the hands of some faceless bureaucracy that we think cannot possibly be corrupt, are what enable us to sustain our personal pacificsm.
I am a leftist and an LGBT person of color. I’m not worried about how easy it is to buy a firearm in Vermont; it’s one of the primary reasons I moved here. All nine Justices concurred unequivocally in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right. The Constitution is the law of the land. It cannot contradict itself. The only possible resolution to this is Amendment, but we have never contemplated Amending out of the Constitution its very soul. Should we attempt to do so, civil war would be inevitable, and it is conservatives who are largely the ones with the military training and weaponry. Choose wisely.
Hey Hofster, Then why did everyone all over the U.S. have trouble purchasing ammo when manufactures and shops are in business to make a profit and why on earth would you believe a government report or Washington Politician ?
He should’ve been denied on that look on his face alone!!!
“Gun control” is racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and authoritarian. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Vermont has the second-lowest population after Wyoming. It is the only reliably left-leaning state which imposes no additional restrictions on firearms above and beyond those the federal government already imposes. Only three other states are similar: Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona. Note that our next-door neighbor, whose state motto is “Live Free or Die”, isn’t on this list.
Yet, here in Vermont, we have a 42% firearms ownership rate–even the hippies have guns–and the lowest violent crime and murder rates in the country. In DC, where guns were until relatively recently completely banned, they have a firearms ownership rate of less than 1%, and a violent crime rate over 50 times that of Vermont. The reasons for this are homogeneity, lack of density, and a culture of peace. We don’t need draconian control over our lives like the people of Chicago, New York City, or Boston.
ezduzit wrote: “The more their population density (Muslim) the more the hate of every non Muslim, American, Westerner, LGBT, and everyone else by Islam.” Krikey! Given the hysteria being provoked when some of us just want to support the survivors of Orlando, and finally get some gun safety regulations to protect ALL of us, I’m thinking, Mr./Ms. ezduzit: “The more their population density (White, Christian gun-owners), the more the hate of every Muslim, peace-loving American, LGBT and everyone else by White Christian gun-owners.”
Let that soak in, friend. How do you feel when you read that? Smeared? Unjustly accused? See how wrong-headed it is to blame a whole category of people because some of their kind do or say despicable things? So please, just stop doing it. Peace. (And a PS to everyone out there: If you wouldn’t post something nasty if you had to sign your real name, then think about not posting it just because you get to use anonymity to hide behind. Chill. Thanks.)
I demand the immediate and complete disarmament of all regular police forces in the United States. There is absolutely no reason why regular police forces need to be customarily armed as part of their routine duties and equipment. It is deeply concerning to me that police violence in this country is out of control, yet none of my fellow leftists who rail against the police state and the prison-industrial complex seem to want to take the guns away from the cops.
Remember that our Constitution does not guarantee the right of the state to keep and bear arms, it guarantees the right of the people. The state cannot have rights, because rights inhere only in individuals by virtue of existence.
The Metropolitan Police of the United Kingdom have never in their history ever been customarily armed, and the number of police killed in the UK in the entire history of the Metropolitan Police since their organisation in 1829 is about 5000, a number the United States hits with in a few years, continually.
Lest you believe that the English are simply less violent than Americans, I invite you to look up what’s happening in France right now, as a result of the Euro Cup soccer matches, and I invite you to study the history of firearms law in the UK. “Gun control” has effectively only existed in the UK since 1920. Semi-automatic rifles were banned in 1987 and handguns in 1997. Violent crime has skyrocketed in the UK, since.
I see some papier mache in your future, Paul.
What are stupid? That’s the way we do things in Vermont. Any politician that messes with this knows that their political career will be over. Where are you from anyway? Obviously not from Vermont. If you don’t like it here your boots were made for walking. Move your ass to another state.
After reading the comments one can sure tell the liberals from true Vermonters..There’s no law in Vermont on what kind of gun you can and can’t buy in Vermont, never has been, guess it’s because true Vermonters know how to use and respect guns..We aren’t whinny babies like the libs who have moved to Vt from other states..transplants..who is trying to take over..
Vermont has very few gun control laws, and has among the most permissive laws in the nation regarding the purchase and open or concealed carry of firearms. 4 states Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont — allow concealed carry without any permit..Is it because we aren’t idiots? That we know how to use guns? For all you liberals , guns don’t kill, it’s the person behind the gun pulling the trigger.. My gun is always near me and has never gotten up and went out and killed anyone..Wow imagine that..What happened in Orlando was cause by a radical terrorist muslim, who was on the FBI watch list but for some reason was taken off ..right obumass and Clinton..Don’t go blaming law abiding gun owners..who have had guns for yrs..click dislike all you want, you just don’t want to face the facts..
7- Days reaches for the low hanging fruit and comes up empty handed. What privately owned item in Vermont could not be transferred through a private sale to another person without government interference– especially if the buyer or seller desired to break the law? More laws do not stop criminal behavior. Let’s make marijuana illegal and medically regulated– that will stop illegal production and distribution. This author’s premise is so flawed and full of holes. It would be nice if you let Eddie Cutler write a piece for 7 Days.
This is why there are so many mass shootings in Vermont.
I will confess that I’m not familiar with Vermont State law concerning firearms in your State, so I’m going to have to base what I know from what we have here in GA. Paul bought his rifle from an advertisement on an FFL Licensed Gun Store Website. Any purchase or transaction here in the State of GA through an FFL requires that the person completes a 4473. Why didn’t Paul mention this? Why didn’t Paul mention that for a seller or buyer to sell through an FFL it requires the proper documentation and ID? The buyer has to show up at the FFL to complete the 4473.
Paul wrote a brilliant piece and I wish I had his skill, but I’m wondering why Paul left out some very important details. If someone uniformed read this they’d be under the impression that Joe and Jane Anybody can go on a web site, pick their gun and meet someone at a Five Guys to buy their gun. I have a lot more questions for people in Vermont, but I’m pretty confident Paul left out critical information on purpose.
Here is an article from a good friend who is an expert on self defense and speaks volumes on what could have happened in Orlando
http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/06/15/…
I would also announce that any person in the LGBT community who wants to learn self defense should follow the links. We already have a number of instructors in Vermont willing to help.
Ed Cutler
President
Gun Owners of Vermont
Do you want to sell that bad boy? That looks like a nice gun. By the way, you cant buy an assault rifle anywhere. All you purchased was a Long gun. That where the joke is on gun control. the gun your holding is no different then an old cowboy gun. It just looks like an assault riffle. all legal rifles are not military at all. This fact goes largely ignored by both sides in the debate.
so anyway, if you want to perpetrate an even bigger scandal, lets see if we can get it across state lines. Take the gun to your local gun store and tell them you need to send a gun to Louis Reeves in Oklahoma city. Send the gun to 4205 NW 23RD ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73107. Guess what, I will be able to pick that gun up!
wow its sinister isn’t it? Well I suppose I need to pay you, so please email me at louisjamesreeves@gmail.com and we can set up a payment. Let me know if you want to engage in a legal interstate transport and I will be happy to help you get your story even bigger for the publics enjoyment. .
Louis
I do not care where you stand on this issue… get these things through your head. First, the second amendment was written for me to defend myself from you (and vise versa) and this government, not to hunt. Second, I will NEVER ask government permission to purchase a weapon. Third, I am not a criminal and never have been and I will never allow myself to be treated as a criminal by you for something other people have done. Fourth, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to know what I own or have any say in what I own. And finally, it’s time for you to stop blaming the tool and blame and punish the criminal, execute the murderer, imprison for life the attempted murderer and punish all criminals without mercy. Taking away free people’s rights, controlling their rights, limiting their rights or regulating their rights in any way makes you the enemy of America, the enemy of Freedom and the enemy of liberty for all.
Hofsterini
There are plenty of people that discuss taking more action than just background checks…which I personally don’t have a problem with.
My point is banning something never leads to a more desirable outcome. Where there is a will there is a way. Anything that is illegal is obtainable on the black market or through knowing the right people.
The shooter in Orlando had bought the firearms legally and had even been under FBI scrutiny.
Clearly the regulation played no part in stopping his psychotic actions. There is really no way to stop someone who has these types of desires.
Spare me your assumptions of someone like myself being full of “macho nonsense”.
People like you need to view the bigger picture and stop taking a article like this and running with it.
Bunch of xenophobes, eh?
First of all, Vermont has no wall around it, so why do you think you are any more of a Vermonter than someone who’s moved here from elsewhere? We pay taxes too. We bring culture, and money, and knowledge. And diversity. And beauty. More people will come. Get used to it.
Reading your comments is hilarious.
What do you have to defend that anyone even wants? Your mobile home? Your tacky camo clothing? What? I can’t think of a thing anyone would want from any of you.
And don’t kid yourself into thinking Donald Trump gives a crap about a bunch of bonehead hicks in Vermont. Oh, I know. I get it! He’ll recruit you and your big guns to join his militia when he marches all the Hispanics, Muslims, Asians and women who aren’t models straight to the concentration camps. Right?
A great solution in search of a problem, as they say. Except more passive aggressive like. It’s OK. Your friends will agree wholeheartedly. That’s what matters in identity politics.
For the past decade I have hosted a visiting tour group of policemen from Auckland, New Zealand, who come over to play exhibition rugby matches with other departments along the East Coast. In my discussions with them, I learned that they never carry firearms. When confronted by an armed suspect, they take him down with a police baton – apparently a very effective close-combat weapon. No Taser, no gun, just a heavy stick. Considering that Chief del Pozo had one of his men shoot a decrepit old guy dead while in his bathroom, while holding a heavy shield that blocked the knife, it would seem that we have a lot to learn from the Zealanders. Any serious cop with a shield and a baton can take any suspect down. Time for the police to set the standard by removing guns from their customary equipment. and learning the art of the baton.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said this week, “We’ve got three examples now of folks on the radar — Major Nidal Hasan, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and now Omar Mateen — who were on our radar, who were looked at, are then dismissed.” If you believe that background checks, “no fly, no buy” lists and other government programs are going to protect you from bad people getting guns you can see from the above that they are very fallible. The FBI had the money, power, time and opportunity to thoroughly check out these people and were still unable to determine that they were dangerous. The truth is that the government cannot protect you by pre-empting the ownership of guns, knives, explosives and other common weapons. The people who want to harm you have infinite ways to do it. Your safety and protection is up to you, that is why your right of self-defense is enumerated in the Second Amendment. You might not like the idea of buying and training with a firearm and you might refuse to carry it or keep it where it can be used, but you probably don’t like having to pay for car or fire insurance either. It’s your choice-protect yourself or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Shumlin says he wants a 50 state solution – he didn’t want that with health care or marijuana…… hmmmm……
How is this gun any different than a hunting rifle? I see that it looks sort like a military issue weapon but is probably just outfitted with stock and trim to look extra dangerous. Does it do anything besides fire a single bullet when you pull the trigger? You need to add a murderer to change this into something more than a simple gun!
Great piece Paul.
“gun violence — perhaps the only issue on which rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had run to his left.”
Immigration.
Women’s reproductive freedom,.
…
ignorance is our most expensive commodity.
If Seven Days bought a Remington 742 in the parking lot it would have fallen on deaf ears .
The 742 like the AR is a semi auto, the difference is that the 742 has a wood stock that makes it look like a
hunting rifle while the AR has plastic and composite parts that resemble its full auto military Brethren the M16
and M4.
Private sales between any individual are not the problem to the Orlando’s and Newtowns of the world,
the shooters are.
The Orlando Jihadist bought his Non AR15 from a gun dealer and passed a background check even though
he had been on a terrorist watch list and under investigation by the FBI.
But what the hell, why let the facts and reason interfere with an attention getting headline and a sensationalist
story
This does not sound legit. Next time he better video it and get the guys name and address so he can be interviewed. Otherwise, as long as the purchaser was a Vermont State resident this was legal and nothing to be concerned about. After all there are 30 to 40 million similar guns in the US that have never been used to kill anyone so we have no reason to suspect the mere existence of another is anything to worry about.
If any of you are interested here is what a semi automatic firearm really is. They are not machine guns and have actually been commercially manufactured since the 1870s Yes the 1870s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPckHcpNKH…
Thank god you had it locked in your car or it could’ve killed everyone at the police station! People kill people whether they use a gun, a knife or their bare hands.
The answer is obvious: all Five Guy’s and their parking lots should be banned.
And Tris Coffin, by ‘Great piece’ I assume that you were referring to the firearm.
I find it fascinating that this article incites the amount of comment responses it has, if only people were so passionate about other topics in Vermont.
The bigger terrorist killings involved NO guns. The world trade centers used no guns. The Boston bombers used no guns, the Oklahoma city bombing used no guns. I have used a gun for more than 30 years and have never shot anyone, it never discharged unless I wanted it to. I had a rifle hanging in my garage for 20 years and it never moved until one day I decided I didn’t want it any more. then it moved when I gave it to someone I knew and trusted. Guess what people, guns are not the problem, radical people are the problem. So does that mean we should lock anyone away who we suspect of radical thinking?
So here’s my question to the gun buyer. You had a functional AR-15 type weapon and three magazines. Why didn’t you use it to shoot the first 90 people you saw on that crowed street? Case closed.
Thank you for the type of article that hopefully will get picked up by the national press.
Great reporting!
I am still waiting for some anti-gun zealot like this Heintz creep to explain how new and more “gun control” laws will prevent guns from getting into the hands of terrorists, thugs and criminals who by definition don’t give a $hit about laws to begin with.
Great article!!
you want to know what i think is screwed up ?? i have bought many guns , and not once has the thoughts that this reporter mentioned gone through my mind … maybe he needs to be put on a terrorist threat list … just saying ,, he scares me
If you really want to impress us you should pick up a TERRORIST at the Five Guys parking lot and deliver him to BPD!
Thanks, Paul Heintz, for your public service and your reporting.
By your description of the sale, it was not legal… For a private sale to be legal it cannot cross State lines – so the seller had to verify some how, that you were from Vermont. All sales by dealers must have a BGC as dealers are FFL’s and required to do so by law… So this must have been a private sale of a non-dealer owned weapon. If it wasn’t, you just showed everyone how to purchase on the black market.
Secondly, are you sure you bought that for only “$500”?
If one kid on a playground was hitting the others with a stick… would you take the stick away, or give every kid a stick?
‘ If one kid on a playground was hitting the others with a stick… would you take the stick away, or give every kid a stick? ‘
Children aren’t allowed to own firearms. Your analogy might make you feel self-satisfied, but in the world of adulthood, it doesn’t pertain.
‘ So here’s my question to the gun buyer. You had a functional AR-15 type weapon and three magazines. Why didn’t you use it to shoot the first 90 people you saw on that crowed street? Case closed. ‘
1. It needs a new extractor arm.
2. The author probably didn’t have any ammunition.
3. The author probably wouldn’t know how to load a magazine, anyway.
4. The author probably is too scared of the recoil of a piddly little .223 to actually fire it.
Because, otherwise, everyone knows the mere possession of a instrument of lethal force suddenly causes rational people to become monsters, so he definitely would have just started mowing down little children, disabled people, and LGBT people like me.
‘ it is time for us to really rethink something that I have believed for decades: whether or not it makes sense for people today to walk into a store and purchase a military-style weapon, which has one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to kill people. ‘
You know, Bernie, I love you to death, you have my vote, but you are just dead wrong on this issue.
Amendment II was written precisely to guarantee that the people of this nation would have access to the types of personal arms in common use for military purposes. Yes, firearms are made for killing people. That is why we use them. That is why they are useful.
At no point in history has humanity ever turned away from the use of coercion and violence to carry out the will to dominate others, and at no point in history since our first simian ancestors discovered that sticks and stones do, in fact, break bones have words ever sufficed to turn their blows.
To expect that we can eradicate arms from our society is naïve and dangerous, for the history of armaments is not a history of the strong conquering the weak, but just the reverse. It is weaponry which enables the weakest among us to defend themselves against the aggression of the physically and politically powerful.
There is a woman here giving a candy vs. guns analogy. “Winner of the brain dead award”
And so what? Truth is you bought a gun that is a semi-automatic just like almost every other gun on the market. Its round, (bullet) is smaller than most hunting rifles. It fires no faster than any other rifle, which is only as fast as you pull the trigger. WHAT IT IS NOT: it is not an AUTOMATIC WEAPON. IT DOES NOT FIRE BURSTS. IT DOES NOT FIRE DEADLIER ROUNDS. IT DOES NOT HOLD MORE BULLETS THAN OTHER GUNS. IT DOES NOT FIRE LONG LINES OF AMMO LIKE IN THE MOVIES. WHAT IT IS: A dumbed down, slowed up, mock up of a military weapon. An AUTOMATIC WEAPON REQUIRES A PERMIT FROM THE ATF. That is not what you bought in the parking lot. It simply LOOKS badass. Lee Harvey Oswald used an ordinary hunting rifle to place several rounds exactly where he wanted them in a matter of a few seconds at a long distance. The AR 15 cannot do that. There is absolutely no point to a ban on a semi-automatic weapon just because it LOOKS dangerous. IT WILL ACCOMPLISH EXACTLY NOTHING.Why then do terrorists choose that weapon? TO SCARE YOU.Stop waving your arms around yelling for something that literally is senseless and start asking what is BEHIND the gun.
There is a greater chance, that some buying beer then drinking and driving, killing or seriously hurting someone than an AR15, so why don’t you push for prohibition. I have bought guns both privately and at gun shops, and my weapons haven’t hurt anyone. Please check I believe you will find that the majority of the gun violence in VT was from people coming from outside the state or by the police in performing their duty. VT has no need to alter its gun laws, if you believe you will be safer with more gun laws move. NYC, Chicago and LA have very strict gun control and it’s worked wonders for them.
Great article Paul. Keep up the good work.
Here’s a factoid that will get ya, from the Boston Globe: http://apps.bostonglobe.com/graphics/2016/06/make-it-stop/
“There is nothing more American today than a mass shooting, the quickest way for the wicked among us to join the ranks of the reviled. Their motives are many, but their opportunity is limited only by their gun and ammunition magazine brand preference. In this country, the federal government limits duck hunters to weapons that carry only three shells, to protect the duck population. But you can buy an assault weapon in seven minutes and an unlimited number of bullets to fire with it. For every McDonald’s in the United States, there are four federally licensed gun dealers and an untold number of unregulated private dealers who can legally sell an unlimited number of guns out of their homes, backpacks, and car trunks without requiring a criminal background check or proof of ID.”
Do we really know for certain that he bought this at a private sale?? No evidence, no sale slip, etc, etc. Could be a made up story to further the liberal agenda. Wish I’d know about it, I’d buy it in a minute.
I would love to hear Mr. Heintz’s version of a law that would keep guns out of the hands of thugs, criminals and terrorists. I would support it if it makes sense.
Pearl(clutcher) in the woodwork seems to think the Constitution has something about Mcdonalds in it.
The only impression I’m left with your story Paul, is that you purchased this weapon, in the same manner that any criminal, would purchase a weapon. I lived in Puerto Rico for a few years. They have some of the strictest gun laws on the books. It could take years, and thousands of dollars, for a law abiding citizen to legally purchase a weapon. I was at friends bar, having a drink, when I opened up a conversation with him, asking how hard was it to get a weapon in PR. he said difficult. A man sitting next to me, whom I didn’t know asked, “What do you want?” I said a 9mm with a couple magazines. He said, “Be here tomorrow, I can get you a 9 and 2 mags. The price is $1500, and the mags are $50 each, $2 a round of ammunition.” Profitable, considering what he would’ve sold me, was around $500 here. I told him I couldn’t afford that, so the conversation was over. I’ll bet I could recreate that scenario, in any City, State, or Country around the world. Laws don’t mean a thing to criminals.
So the question is, if we had laws that prevent such an exchange, would the shootings stop? I can’t say for certain, but i think the answer is no.
Know this, If someone is intent on a purpose, there is no stopping them. Take a away a firearm, and they will make a bomb from manure. Should completely ban the purchase of that as well?
How about over the counter drugs that are use to make meth, lets stop selling them.
Do some research in country’s with banned firearm laws, there are no less violent crimes, they are just committed with a different weapon.
My point is there is no shortage of evil. I am all for appropriate laws, safeguards and restrictions, more in depth background checks, mandatory waiting periods. Just don’t prevent me from legally doing so.I would like to continue to project my home and family from the evil that exists outside the safety of my home.
gnorance is our most expensive commodity.
If Seven Days bought a Remington 742 in the parking lot it would have fallen on deaf ears .
The 742 like the AR is a semi auto, the difference is that the 742 has a wood stock that makes it look like a
hunting rifle while the AR has plastic and composite parts that resemble its full auto military Brethren the M16
and M4.
Private sales between any individual are not the problem to the Orlando’s and Newtowns of the world,
the shooters are.
The Orlando Jihadist bought his rifle from a gun dealer and passed a background check even though
he had been on a terrorist watch list and under investigation by the FBI
But what the hell, why let the facts and reason interfere with an attention getting headline and a sensationalist
story
Most guns has a low number of rounds it will hold My Browning 308 BLR holds four.My neighbor has a 308 Assualt Riddle will hold over a hundred with a drum that holds even more.To convert to fully automatic it took less than 100.00 and less than THIRTY minutes at his kitchen table with a screw driver and channel locks.
He was not the first owner.The first owner paid 1,100.00 for it,my friend got it for eight with no papers.The next owner will get it the same way even cheaper.Right down to the kid who kills a family because he has mental problems.It finally got cheap enough for him.All because the first owner wanted something else bigger badder and newer.Gun reform is a must.
“Laws don’t mean a thing to criminals”
Well said. Problem is, common sense and facts don’t mean a thing to would-be journalists or politicians.
Paul, you bought this horrible, terrible, evil weapon without any background checks, and how many people did you hurt with it? ZERO! Exactly the same as 99.99999% of all the other gun owners out there.
Enforce the laws we have. Prosecute & actually punish criminals and stop persecuting the rest of us.
I have to wonder how many of these mass killings, with guns or otherwise, were committed because someone became unhinged after reading a specific published article of propaganda that set them off? It’s very easy for any writing, article, story or blog, to light the fuse on these psychopathic time bombs that are just sitting out there cruising an internet the founding fathers never imagined would exist when they wrote the 1st amendment.
I think people like Paul and sites like Seven Days, should be required to have a license to publish these assault articles. And that they should be limited in how many of these articles they are allowed to write every year. There should also be a severe penalty for any mis-truths and/or blatant lies. They should be required to check & document every single fact and opinion against a government sanctioned database before the article is allowed to be published and their licenses subject to revocation if their opinions are not in line with what the government considers to be the “correct opinions”
Are not now, every employee in every journalism office all over the country, in danger of a mass killing/bombing/arson or shooting because someone reading this endless diatribe finally gets fed up and loses it. Could be 20 such events just in the next month because of the extensive reach of modern journalism, the founding fathers surely never envisioned.
So if private sales are the problem, where are the statistics of mass shootings involving private sale firearms? So far all the firearms were purshased leagally or stolen from someone who purshased legally.
Nice to see the man wanting our top law enforcement position in the state “TJ Donovan” mince words afraid to lose votes as usual.
It is all well and good that he wrote this article. However, there are several points to make. The seller has a right to sell his property. The seller was negligent in the course of the sale and possibly violated federal law concerning the transaction. Seller has a duty to ascertain whether the buyer is a felon or not, lives in the state and is of required age. It is his responsibility to maintain a record of who he sold it to. Otherwise if it is used unlawfully by an unlawful purchaser he becomes liable. Next point is criminals always find a way to get a weapon, if not a gun, then a knife, bomb, truck, bat etc. it is not the gun..it is the person that kills people. We prosecute people for a crime. We do not prosecute an inanimate object.
And let’s get to the real issue here. Their agenda is not really gun control. That is just an avenue to accomplish their end. The real issue with gun control does not involve the word gun…only control…the left wants absolute and total control of all aspects of your life. They are already trying to control the way people think and reason. Hence all the illogic in people. Look at what our schools are putting out for product. Look at the dogma being taught, look at the brainwashing going on. Do you think this is by accident? No it was documented in a process created by the communists in the 1950’s and it has been in the works since then. I will leave you with one statement they made back then. ” We will destroy you from within”. They are well on their way. Read the communist manifesto and learn. Then talk to me about gun control.
the problem I have with this article is that I don’t believe the author bought the firearm exactly as he said he did. Why would the seller back off on checking his ID so easily? If he had said he offered more money to the seller to skip the ID it might be a bit more believable but It makes no sense when you consider the price he paid. $500 is a cheap price as even the police told the buyer. Why would the seller go through a private sale and sell it at a price any dealer would have paid. AR type firearms sell for $750 and up. A dealer would buy the gun at $500 and turn it over quickly and make a good profit. I’d like to read the sellers version of this transaction because I simply don’t believe the authors version.
here’s an idea every one should be armed. by choice of you don’t want to be then don’t. but no gun law will change this. of and once guns are banned, the criminals will still posses them and make it twice as easy to rob a stand up citizen.
I have one question for Heintz. Let’s say you get your wish and background checks are required for this type of purchase. How exactly would that have changed the transaction? How would anyone enforce it?
So I’m a year late to this article & discussion, forgive me:
I ask now though, what’s the point of your exercise, exactly? Let me ask of you this, Mr. Heintz, where is your story reflecting the tragedy cigarette smoking wreaks on our state? Where is your admonishment of celebrities that pitch alcohol? Wouldn’t a complete ban on cigarette sales accomplish a reduction in needless loss of life? What about a complete rewrite of laws that would prohibit alcohol sales? There are far more deaths in Vermont, and the nation as a whole, caused by cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption than there are firearm related deaths. Limousine liberals such as yourself that spew vitriolic nonsense about whatever your ’cause-of-the-day’ happens to be, from the comfort of ‘coffee shops, jamming out to Trey and the boys’, is clearly unmotivated to achieve anything lasting in this community other than to make yourself appear relevant, and relevant, sir, you are not.
Have your opinion, Mr. Heintz, and continue to express it, but it express it fairly and in context. Don’t attack one area of concern while simultaneously giving a pass to others that are just as important to your overall message. I interpret that your larger message is the health and welfare of all Vermonters, and if that is indeed the case, then the state’s firearm laws are the least in need of attention at this time.
Thank you for your thought provoking article, Mr. Heintz, and keep up the writing.
I just posted this in their comments…
Trey Gowdy, one of the most respected prosecutors in the United States who also served in the US government spoke out about the stupidity of these arguments yesterday..
This is what he had to say and it is exactly the truth.. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=102115…
We need to rebuild families and allow parents to discipline their children properly..
We used to teach about guns in our schools.. we no longer do that..
Gun free zones have proven to be a magnet for these cowards that want to do mass destruction to innocent people who cannot defend themselves..
Maybe the government should look into getting rid of these areas that create Sitting Ducks of the poor people that are forced to be in those areas.
When we had less government interference in our lives we certainly had much better results.
Very Nice Post
very Nice Post
40,000 children die each year due to the carelessness, incapacity, or neglect of their parents… where are the parks named in their honor, where are the laws enacted with their names, where are the plaques displaying their names across the fronts of apartment complexes and shopping malls?
Each year, approximately 300 children are murdered by their parent’s bare hands, more than are killed by assault weapons. Where are the news headlines, the legions of protesters, and the banners?
Each year about 4000 “children” are killed because they are texting or distracted while driving. Where is the self-righteous indignation of the Democrats then? Where are the Bloomberg-financed opportunists, where is Roger Moore, or Piers Morgan?
Every day, 250,000 people die. Some are blown apart by high-speed collisions, some eaten alive by cancer, some drown, way too many die of hunger, malaria takes more lives than DDT ever did… some simply choke to death, there are about 3000 die each year mining coal, more than ever died in ALL nuclear power plant accidents in history combined. Why are their deaths any less important, newsworthy, or activist worthy than being killed by a mad man with an AR-15 ? ? ? The answer is: To demonize firearms and the people who own them.
This IS The United States of America, a country founded on the principle of Liberty and Justice, where all men are to be assumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, a court of law, and a jury of their peers, entitled to be confronted by their accuser, and, until such time, endowed by their creator, be it God, or Nature, with all the rights and liberties of a free man (person).
hahah paul do you jerk off to del bozo holding your AR-15 lmao what a loser.