The Boston Marathon bombers had… illegal guns.

Which is impossible, right?

A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn’t have gun permits.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE’-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

…I mean, Massachusetts has strict gun control laws.  You’re not allowed to have a firearm without permission!  How could this have happened?

Via @iowahawkblog: alas, David Burge was unable to restrain himself from saying something both profane and highly appropriate for this ‘revelation.’  Of course the Boston Marathon bombers got their guns illegally. Outlaws, remember? – Those guys are, as a group, most likely to have firearms – even when firearms are otherwise unobtainable.  Hrm.  There’s a saying in there, somewhere…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: But, hey: at least Massachusetts Democrats are making it harder for law-abiding people to get a gun.  So, partial credit for effort?

PPS: The AP article also notes that the bombers did not let their hostage go; the hostage instead managed to make a run for it while distracted. As you might recall, the hostage had a Coexist sticker on his car; I recommend that he acquire the following items in response.

7 thoughts on “The Boston Marathon bombers had… illegal guns.”

  1. I’m assuming MA laws on bombs are even more restricted than guns…not sure how they had one with those with the even-more strongly-worded restrictions in place.

  2. Worse yet, I’m guessing the MIT campus is a gun free zone, they had illigal guns in a gun free zone!

  3. Heh, I understand they are being prosecuted for “weapons of mass destruction” violations, because that carries the death penalty. Murder, apparently does not in Messachusetts

Comments are closed.