Gun Control & RKBA

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts) Thu Dec 17, 2015, 08:50 AM Dec 2015

Alleged buyer of guns used in San Bernardino shooting may face several charges

Enrique Marquez, who allegedly purchased the assault rifles used in the San Bernardino mass shooting, could face a variety of charges, including lying on his application to buy the guns and conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, legal experts said.

Marquez, 24, legally purchased the rifles from an authorized gun dealer in 2011 and 2012, but there was no record of any transfer of the weapons from him to Syed Rizwan Farook or Farook's wife, Tashfeen Malik, according to federal sources familiar with the ongoing investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity. Farook and Malik killed 14 people and wounded many others during a Dec. 2 attack on a social services office.

The most straightforward case against Marquez would probably center on violations of state and federal gun laws, experts said.

Federal rules make it a crime to lie on any part of the registration paperwork required of gun buyers. As part of that law, gun buyers are prohibited from purchasing a gun with the intent of giving it to another person — a deceit known as a straw purchase or "lying and buying."

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-marquez-legal-20151216-story.html

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Alleged buyer of guns used in San Bernardino shooting may face several charges (Original Post) SecularMotion Dec 2015 OP

I hope they make an example of this guy CanonRay Dec 2015 #1

Wow! Another post showing the laws we have now are working. DonP Dec 2015 #2

From what I have read so far NV Whino Dec 2015 #3

Straw purchases can be hard to prove, yes. Straw Man Dec 2015 #6

Thanks. I missed that. NV Whino Dec 2015 #7

You're welcome. Straw Man Dec 2015 #8

Smurf. Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #4

I thought we had "NO" gun laws??? virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #5

Curious aksptth Dec 2015 #9

CanonRay

(14,859 posts)

1. I hope they make an example of this guy

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Dec 17, 2015, 09:02 AM

Dec 2015

Since we can't seem to get better gun laws, we might was well throw the entire bookshelf when we can.

DonP

(6,185 posts)

2. Wow! Another post showing the laws we have now are working.

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Dec 17, 2015, 10:15 AM

Dec 2015

I thought those were "NRA Talking Points"?

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)

3. From what I have read so far

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Dec 17, 2015, 10:51 AM

Dec 2015

I don't know how they could possibly make anything stick.

There may be some evidence of which I am not currently aware, but based on what I've seen, they have nothing with which to charge this guy.

I mean, "bought for?" Who's to say they didn't borrow them or steal them? You can't lock the guy up on what we think happened. There has to be some proof.

Straw Man

(6,771 posts)

6. Straw purchases can be hard to prove, yes.

Reply to NV Whino (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 17, 2015, 08:43 PM

Dec 2015

I don't know how they could possibly make anything stick.

There may be some evidence of which I am not currently aware, but based on what I've seen, they have nothing with which to charge this guy.

Would his multiple confessions help? Marquez has been singing like a bird to anyone who will listen, starting with a 911 call shortly after the shootings:

After the attack, Marquez called 911 and said, "My neighbor ... did the San Bernardino shooting," according to the FBI affidavit. After clarifying that his neighbor was the shooter, Marquez added: "The f------ a------ used my gun in the shooting."

The 911 operator asked how Marquez knew it was his gun, and he responded: "They can trace all the guns back to me."

Marquez told the operator that he gave Farook his gun for "safe storage" because he couldn't have it around his brothers.

--http://www.businessinsider.com/enrique-marquez-jr-911-call-for-san-bernardino-shooting-2015-12

At the very least, that's an illegal transfer under California law, which requires a background check by an FFL for any transfer of a firearm. At the worst, it's a bullshit story created to cover a straw purchase, which is a Federal offense.

I wouldn't want to be this guy's lawyer.

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)

7. Thanks. I missed that.

Reply to Straw Man (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 17, 2015, 10:41 PM

Dec 2015

I still think they will have a difficult time proving he bought the guns for them, though.

Straw Man

(6,771 posts)

8. You're welcome.

Reply to NV Whino (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 18, 2015, 01:45 AM

Dec 2015

Actually, I think there are three levels of legal jeopardy for him. First, as I mentioned, an illegal transfer under California law. Second, the Federal charge for straw purchase. Finally, and this is the one I think they're going for, conspiracy to commit the murders. For the last one, I'm guessing they'll go to his social media and electronic communication.

My gut feeling is that this guy is a clueless putz who got in over his head. That doesn't mean that they won't try to put him away for a long time.

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)

4. Smurf.

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Dec 17, 2015, 01:13 PM

Dec 2015

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)

5. I thought we had "NO" gun laws???

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Dec 17, 2015, 04:19 PM

Dec 2015

wait, what did I miss?!

aksptth

(68 posts)

9. Curious

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 07:54 PM

Dec 2015

I'm surprised someone didn't tell him to button his lip. He undoubtedly blubbered himself into jail for a long long time. Not saying he doesn't deserve it, but a situation like his is very susceptible to nuances of law and I certainly doubt the FBI were keeping his best interests in mind during a multi hour interrogation.

Reply to this discussion