The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Loophole protects Columbine 'witness'
Law keeps authorities from charging Anderson for buying killers' guns

By Dan Luzadder
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorities are still trying to make a case against Robyn Anderson, the Columbine High student who purchased three of the four weapons used by killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Until now, Anderson has been described by police as a witness in the case.

But prosecutors and investigators told the Denver Rocky Mountain News that a loophole in federal law has stopped them -- so far -- from charging her with making an illegal "straw purchase" of a firearm.

Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms confirmed that they are still pursuing an active investigation into one of those weapons -- they won't say which one -- to determine who sold it to her.

"But it's like looking for a needle in a haystack," said Marcus Motte, special agent for the ATF office in Denver.

Agents were able to trace two of the firearms to the seller at the Tanner Gun Show in Denver after an unidentified source tipped agents to the fact that Anderson had purchased those weapons.

When confronted with that information, days after the slayings, Anderson admitted her role. But she told agents all three weapons were purchased in a "private sale."

Agents have not been able to trace one of the guns to a seller, and agents are still looking.

"If it was sold (at the gun show) by a federally licensed firearms dealer, either they didn't fill out the paperwork, in which case the dealer is liable, or the application was falsified by Anderson, which would be a felony," Motte said.

The case has been closely scrutinized.

"We wanted to prosecute her," said Aura Leigh Ferguson, assistant district attorney in Jefferson County. "But (in) ... a private sale ... we couldn't make a case."

Anderson, then 18, admitted to ATF investigators shortly after the April 20 shootings that she bought two shotguns and a 9 mm semiautomatic carbine for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at a gun show in metro Denver months before the crime.

Harris and Klebold were 17 at the time, too young to legally purchase the guns.

Two other individuals -- Mark Manes and Phillip Duran -- are facing felony charges for their part in selling the two killers a semiautomatic TEC-DC9 pistol. It is illegal for anyone to sell a handgun to a minor.

Manes has pleaded guilty to the charges and is awaiting sentencing. He could face up to nine years in prison. Charges against Duran are pending.

Many people have questioned why Anderson was never charged for her role in obtaining the other firearms for two minors.

Under the Brady Law, anyone who buys a pistol or a long gun from a licensed firearms dealer must fill out an application and undergo a background check. Circumventing that background check is a violation of federal law.

But that law does not apply to private sales, only to people licensed by the federal government to sell guns.

"(If there) was no application, there was no falsification of any document," Ferguson said.

Calls to Anderson were not returned, and efforts to reach her for comment through other parties were unsuccessful.

Anderson bought the guns at the Tanner Gun Show with money provided by Harris and Klebold.

She was a friend of Klebold's and his prom date days before he and Harris killed 13 people, wounded 23 and committed suicide in the Columbine library.

She said on national television months ago that she knew nothing of the plans by Harris and Klebold to attack the school when she purchased the guns. She has since refused to talk with reporters.

Police said during the early part of their investigation that they considered Anderson a witness, not a suspect, in the case.

But John Kiekbusch, law enforcement division chief for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, said in a recent interview that investigators had long wanted to bring charges against the girl for her role.

"As I understand it, it's a loophole in the straw-purchase law that prevents her from being charged," Kiekbusch told the News. "We certainly felt she should have faced charges for what she did."

Ferguson said the district attorney's office "advised" the sheriff's department on the issue but has never been presented a case against Anderson. She said there is no Colorado straw-purchase statute that applies in this situation.

Colorado lawmakers last spring were considering a straw-purchase law aimed at making it a crime to purchase a firearm for another person who could not legally buy a gun themselves. The bill was directed toward convicted criminals who get people with no criminal record buy weapons for them.

But the bill was among several gun-related proposals withdrawn by state lawmakers immediately after the Columbine shootings.

Motte and other agents from the ATF traced all of the firearms used in the killings but were able to locate the final point of sale on only the pistol sold by Manes, and two of the weapons purchased by Anderson.

Larry Russell, a licensed federal firearms dealer, sold the TEC-DC9 in a private sale at the Tanner Gun Show before he obtained his firearms dealers license. But he told police he did not know who he sold the weapon to. Manes came forward to inform authorities of his involvement.

When he pleaded guilty last month, Manes told a judge that he bought 100 rounds of ammunition for the TEC-DC9 for Harris the night before the Columbine shootings.

Authorities said Anderson told them she did not know the identity of the gun seller from whom she bought the weapons. She has said she believed Harris and Klebold wanted the weapons for target shooting or other legitimate reasons.

 

If tens of millions wanted to use bazookas, would you favor eliminating any prohibition on bazookas?

What about tens of millions wanted to use illegal drugs, like cocaine, or mar1juana? Would you favor the legalization of illegal drugs?

And how about other laws. I'd like to drive as fast as I want on any road. I bet there are millions others that like to drive fast. Would you be in favor of eliminating all laws limiting how fast people drive?

You probably can through all sorts of laws that have been enacted that went against people's wants... should that always be the test of whether the government acts, especially when acting to protect people? Protect kids?

 

I am sorry to hear that. I have dear ones sufferring mental conditions too.

Here is my point, I disagree your assessment that the root cause of recent massive shoot is a mental health issue . The cause and effect doesn't add up to support that assement. Based on my experiences, mental problem is a nuerological condition that is genetically inherent to one sufferring it. There is always a fraction of human population suffereing those conditions. In recent history, those conditions became more and more publicized as we gain more knowledge about those conditions. Most professionals in that field have agreed that mental conditions are mostly genetic problems. Social conditions might contribute to it ( as a catalyst) , but it's not like changing social conditions would dramatically reduce mental conditions sufferred. These conditions define what we are as the human race.
However, without guns so accessible to someone sufferring an extreme psyhiatric epsidoe, would it have been possible for a commission of such horrific shootings on such unspeakable terms?

 

This fatalistic opinion has little-to-no evidence supporting it - while the countervailing view is supported by substantial amounts of evidence that various legal and regulatory fixes can be used (and we have tried almost none of them). I'm not going to go into them because they've been detailed and you haven't really been able to generate a coherent response.

Some of it is just basic capitalism/economics - gun owners need to be made to subsidize the negative consequences of their actions instead of passing them along to the next victims. This will make them realize the true cost of their actions.

We of course can also increase the social stigma around gun ownership and make people ashamed and embarrased to own private arsenals. This is very effective and needs to increase.

 

My goal is apparently opposite yours. You want the staus quo on gun restrictions..

US mass shootings: 49x using legal guns. 12x using illegal guns.

 

They are illegal, and I don't own one... and I don't see millions lined up for them.

Tens of millions do want drugs. And I agree with decriminalization illegal drugs and seeking treatment rather than prosecution for those affected. Like Portugal. We are headed that way, and Washington and Colorado this past November prove it.

They already are. Texas has raised the maximum speed limit to 85 MPH. Speed doesn't kill drivers, bad drivers kill drivers. Speed is just a part of the equation. A huge chunk of traffic accidents are caused by people who drive to SLOW. People want to go faster, so they keep raising the speed limit while fatalities on roads actually increases. Why? Because study show that traffic deaths are a direct result of bad drivers, not speed.

Outlawing guns won't change anything, there are too prevalent. Guns are outlawed in South Africa but it is one of the most dangerous countries in the world.

 

After hearing of 20 dead children, my goal is less gun violence. You simply desire more gun restrictions even if it won't lead to less gun violence.

I guess our goals are different.

Also, I don't desire the status quo.

 

How on earth did you think status quo will reduce gun violence?

 

I don't think the status quo will reduce gun violence......

I wish one or more employees in that school had a gun and training to blow that monster away. Could of saved so many lives. Same could be said of the movie theater. Damn gun-free zones.

 

Maybe but . .. honestly . . who knows who has these arsenals
I mean . .. we work with people every that may go home to a bunker
Only within the gun culture . . . do they brag
At one of my jobs. . .a quiet unassume guy . . .really nice guy
one day we were talking and he casually let it be known he makes his own bullets

My prejudice would have never thought it of the guy
I have since realized. . . the gun guy can be any guy
and
socially stigmatizing it .. . may just send it more underground.

I am not against it. . . just not sure how effective it will be

Rocket River

 

Giffords shooting had many licensed carry owners, a lot of them refused to fire because they didn't want to confuse the hell out of law enforcement. Guy who ended it didn't have to use a gun to do it.

In your idealized world, do the kids have collateral damage shields with them? And do no accidents with guns happen---a misplaced gun here, an accidental discharge there...

 

You're barking at the wrong tree. I hope I won't be called insensitive here. Pls retrace who own the guns? Is that person has the training to own that gun? Has the the trait of a responsible gun owner? Are the guns illegal?

Am not blaming the victims, just pointing out the wisdom of more gun restrictions. Or outright ban.

 

There was also a CHL holder that confronted, but did not engage the mall shooter in Oregon. He didn't engage because there were people behind the shooter he did not want to hit. The shooter then killed himself without firing another shot at innocents... so there is evidence that the confrontation with the CHL holder saved lives, even without him becoming involved. Of course, details are still out.

 

I can only image the clusterf*** it would have been with a bunch
of random folx firing back and forth in the Gifford situation

Rocket River

 

Here is my fear and it really troubles me: people carry guns, albeit concealed, that can kill me instantly. How can I trust people who carry. I had a friend who carries, and I didn't really be with him. I don't even trust security guards, cops that carry guns, but that is a necessary evil the society has to live with and so do I. But what is the utility of carrying a gun around. How many of you really draw and protect yourself from harm NECESSARILY (meaning there is no other way you could have avoided the harm without drawing or firing).

When I was in college in my early 20s, I once pulled a stop at a farmland which I thought was a spot for an observation on shcool owned land for my biology class. A farmer came out of his house, pointing his rifle at me and told me that I should leave immediately because my car and I were on his land. Is that the freedom you are talking about, in this day and age?

 

There is evidence that the shooter was in front of an orange julius when he shot himself, so there is evidence that orange julius' save lives.

Seriously, you are the worst logician in history. If you lived in ancient greece, you would be stripped of your toga and sent to live out back with the donkeys.

 

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Don't disgrace donkeys.

I am sorry. I applogize.

 

Yeah and what if his mom had a gun?!? The whole thing could've been avoided. Oh well.

 

You need to be worried about those illegally carrying, not those legally carrying.

CHL carriers who carry guns have gone through extensive background testing, a training course and a shooting test. Most also take it very seriously and engage in training and situational preparedness as part of carrying (think of it as theory crafting).

As far as the farmer you refer to, you have to look at it from his perspective and chalk it up to a life lesson.

 

The shooter saw the guy with his gun, there is an interview with a local news channel floating around.