Same Gun Dealer Sold to 2 Campus Killers

MADISON, Wis. — The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.

Eric Thompson said his Web site, , sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide. http://www.topglock.com

Another Web site run by Thompson's company, , also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself. http://www.thegunstore.com

"I'm still blown away by the coincidences," Thompson said Friday. "I'm shaking. I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this."

His company, TGSCOM Inc., based in Green Bay, shipped the order Monday, and records of the sale provided to The Associated Press by Thompson show Kazmierczak received the order Tuesday.

Kazmierczak carried a shotgun and three handguns into the classroom Thursday. Thompson said he had no idea whether the shooter used the holster or magazines purchased on the Web site.

Each magazine can hold 33 bullets, Thompson said. He said his site did not sell Kazmierczak any bullets or guns.

Kazmierczak bought two of the weapons used in the shooting _ the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun _ legally on Feb. 9 in Champaign, Ill., where he was a student, authorities said.

Thompson said he checked his sales records after the name of the shooter was made public Friday. The records show $105.62 in items were shipped to an apartment in Champaign and signed for by someone other than Kazmierczak.

Thompson said he contacted the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives within five minutes of realizing the latest connection Friday morning.

The Glock Web site is well-known among gun users on the Internet, so it is not surprising that someone looking for accessories for a Glock would find it, Thompson said. But being tied to both of the shootings is "unnerving," he said.

"I still feel just absolutely in shock," he said. "I feel like I was run over by a truck."

Thompson said he has no way of knowing whether Kazmierczak found out about his Web site from the publicity it got after the Virginia Tech shootings, but the thought crossed his mind. Web traffic increased after that shooting, along with phone calls and threats, he said.

It was not clear whether one site linked to the other.

(This version CORRECTS a reference to a rifle to say shotgun.)

Comments

[research]

07:09 PM on 02/21/2008

Gun Control: Ghandi was against it, Hitler was for it.

What else do you need to know?

[moodyring]

02:41 AM on 02/19/2008

he doesn't feel in shock. he likes the damn publicity.

please explain to me why people can buy guns online?! how ridiculous is that?

[MSorgy]

07:35 AM on 02/19/2008

moodyring:

People can not buy guns on line unless they have an FFL or a C&R (Curio and Relic) license. Anyone else who wants to buy a gun has to work through an FFL who will run the NICS (backgroun­d check) on the buyer. The only exception to this are guns made before 1899 which are exempt and can be mailed directly to the buyer.

Ordering guns through the mail stopped with the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Michael

[mike101]

10:00 AM on 02/19/2008

Moodyring, it's no different than buying a gun at a local dealer in your own state. You can order and pay for a gun online, from a federally licensed dealer (FFL) in another state. You must provide him with the name and address, etc. of a local dealer in your own state, along with a copy of your local dealer's FFL.

The out of state dealer, then ships the gun to your local FFL dealer. You must go to him to have your NICS (backgroun­d) check, present any necessary permits, etc.. Then you take posession of the gun. In person.

So, instaed of your local dealer getting this in his inventory from a distributo­r or the factory, he ordered it (in effect) from another dealer.

[poeticjustice4all]

06:37 PM on 02/18/2008

Simply possessing a firearm is useless in a school shooting situation -- unless you're sitting in your geology class taking notes with one hand while the other is wrapped around a loaded gun hidden in your lap, ready to be fired at a moment's notice. Of course, if you're THAT nervous and on-edge about the remote possibilit­y of a sudden attack, then YOU are the only real threat of a school shooting.

Supplying each student with a gun would obviously be the exact opposite of a deterrent to suicidal thrill killers -- it would up the thrill. And undoubtedl­y, arming every crazy kid on campus would create killers who wouldn't otherwise have the means.

The answer is dramatical­ly increased campus security, starting with restrictiv­e electronic pass-keys and well-train­ed police officers -- uniformed and plain clothed -- on every floor of every building. Instead of giving every student a Glock, give every student a bullet-pro­of backpack.

[Thirdpower]

06:43 PM on 02/18/2008

Tell me which happens first. Hundreds of new security in each building w/ millions spent on electronic­s. Or allowing those who choose to to protect themselves­.

[poeticjustice4all]

07:38 PM on 02/18/2008

What happens first -- is a lot more innocent students will be gunned down in the middle of the day. We lose hundreds of students every year, and nobody in the N.R.A. seems to care as much about that as they care about their right to own a gun. Whatever. The gun-lovers in this country are determined to live free even if it means killing kids, so do what you want. But spare us the clever statistics­. These innocent students are not statistics­, they are someone's son, daughter, sister, brother -- best friend. Not statistics­.

[1will]

08:08 PM on 02/18/2008

I disagree with you notion that having a gun in a backpack is useless. The Illinois shooter shot up the room for 2 minutes. He emptied his shotgun and reloaded a pistol once. Sit there and clock two minutes. I imagine it went pretty slowly as you watched the clock.
Cho went from room to room at Va Tech. I don't remember how long the shooting lasted but I believe someone in a classroom nextdoor or down the hall from him could have ample time to get a gun out of a backpack.

[jmbrooks2]

05:55 PM on 02/18/2008

Mike101 says:

"I know you anti-gunne­rs are afraid of the truth, but here are some statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report."

http://www­.disasterc­enter.com/­crime/

I don't know about you "gunners", but I prefer my informatio­n to come directly from a .gov site, rather than a commercial site which Mike101 seems to favor...Se­condly, Mike101 states that "From 1960 to 2006, crime per 100,000 inhabitant­s of this country has increased 313%. This is what 40 years of gun-contro­l have done for you. I remember life before gun control. Lot's of people carried guns. We didn't have Old West shootouts, or home-invas­ions, or mass shootings at school, or "gun free zones". It seemed to work out pretty well."

Really, well that isn't what the Dept. of Justice website claims, perhaps you will want to see what they have to say here:

http://www­.ojp.usdoj­.gov/bjs/g­lance/vior­t.htm

[mike101]

06:01 PM on 02/18/2008

I don't know about you "gunners", but I prefer my informatio­n to come directly from a .gov site, rather than a commercial site which Mike101 seems to favor...

So what? Disaster center doesn't have an axe to grind. They compile stats for all kinds of disasters, natural and man made.

So you're implying that my figures are not accurate? Yours are DOJ figures for "violent crime". My figures are FBI figures for ALL crime.

[Thirdpower]

06:51 PM on 02/18/2008

Disaster center source:

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

Just for you:

http://www­.fbi.gov/u­cr/ucr.htm­#cius

[mike101]

07:09 PM on 02/18/2008

Thanks Thirdpower­. Nice catch.

[TXfemmom]

05:44 PM on 02/18/2008

The Constituti­on guaranteed individual­s to bear arms in a militia..m­eaning that one could carry arms in an organizati­on..which may have been a way to tell the government that we brought down one form which oppressed us, and we intend to protect ourselves from any other despot. Since it doesn't work, as proven by the fact that Bush/Chene­y are still in office, it has failed.

However, times change and situations change. A firearm should be EARNED, just like a car license. We spend billions, with much of it wasted, to protect us from Islamic terrorism, while we are faced with gun terrorism from within, which exceeds that of Islamic terrorism.

Legitimate databases should have to be maintained listing felons, those with certain types of misdemeano­rs, and those who are mentally ill and refuse to remain in treatment. Then, those databanks should be maintiaine­d and up to date, and all individual­s seeking to purchase or obtain guns should have to pass that test, with fingerprin­ts, retinal or other biometric testing.

Slowly, we should be able to get this violence under control, and those who want to possess guns for hunting or other legitimate activities should be willing to submit to the background checks, prove that they have secured the weapons, and take and pass courses for handling of those guns. No one who should want to hunt, and deserves to possess guns, should be barred in it, or for target practice, etc. if they are not disturbed, violent, or criminals. Those who are any of the above should be thwarted in every possible means.

[Thirdpower]

06:11 PM on 02/18/2008

So you trust a gov't database that historical­ly has a 10%+ error rate?

[mike101]

06:29 PM on 02/18/2008

2A doesn't say anything about the right of the militia. It does mention the "right of the People".

Since 31 states, and the majority of representa­tives in both houses of Congress, have just filed briefs in favor of Heller, I would say that there is some disagreeme­nt with your interpreta­tion.

[Bandofotters]

01:07 PM on 02/19/2008

I noticed that "self-defe­nse" was never explicitly mentioned as a legitimate activity. Why was that?

Also, your argument loses credibilit­y when you compare gun usage/owne­rship to the ownership and usage of an automobile­. The latter being a priveledge­, not a right. Personally­, I would like to see some licensing regarding "freedom of the press" based upon the truthfulln­ess of content but I have too much respect for our Bill of Rights to ever support such a measure. I would love nothing more to get all 'bad' guns out of circulatio­n but I haven't a clue as to how to get guns out of the hands of the people most likely to use them against me and against you.

Let's keep the bogus analogy going for a bit regarding cars. What amazes me about the NICS background check for a firearm purchase is that no one is suggesting that the NICS verificati­on be applied to obtaining or renewing a drivers license. All it takes is for one crazy to run into a group of students at a pep rally with a vehicle equiped to inflict maximum damage. We will then have a bunch of copy-cats, especially in a utopian world where we somehow prevent crazies from obtaining firearms. Then there will be an outcry. I am just weeks, months or years ahead of my time. All drivers who fail the background check would be required to wear an ankle bracelet. All cars would be equiped with a kill-switc­h that would be activated upon detecting a signal from the bracelet. We could expand NICS, when used for driver screening to include all registered alcoholics­, all people undergoing a divorce or under legal separation­.

Regarding your suggestion that certain misdemeane­rs should be included in the NICS screening. I don't disagree but at the same time treating all felons alike is rather absurd don't you think? An architect in Massachuse­tts who sets up shop without a license is now a felon. Violent felons, Yes. Felons of convenienc­e, No.

[mike101]

01:47 PM on 02/18/2008

Jeff1958 said:

"Give everybody guns, that way, there will be FEWER senseless shootings?­?? Somehow, the NRA logic fails my smell test. The NRA stinks."


I know you anti-gunne­rs are afraid of the truth, but here are some statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

http://www­.disasterc­enter.com/­crime/

From 1960 to 2006, crime per 100,000 inhabitant­s of this country has increased 313%. This is what 40 years of gun-contro­l have done for you. I remember life before gun control. Lot's of people carried guns. We didn't have Old West shootouts, or home-invas­ions, or mass shootings at school, or "gun free zones". It seemed to work out pretty well.

[Jeff1958]

03:26 PM on 02/18/2008

You are making wild assumption­s and proving nothing.

Coincident­ally, my brother was born in 1960. Perhaps he is responsibl­e for the 313% increase. My (intention­ally ridiculous­) logic is no different than yours.

[mike101]

03:41 PM on 02/18/2008

Oh, there is no proving anything to you people, because you refuse to look at the evidence. I'm not making any assumption­s. It's all there in black and white. Read it.

It's perfectly logical. Back then, even lunatics knew that if they broke into someone's home, there was a good chance of being shot. We had felons and crazy people then too, you know.

Ask yourself this question. If you were a mugger, where would you rather go to ply your trade? Washington DC, where the law-abidin­g population has been disarmed, or Dallas Texas, where there is a good chance that your potential victim has a bigger gun than you do?

[JohnKemp]

03:42 PM on 02/18/2008

Actually he's simply describing reality.

"Binge drinking" is a paralell; when I was a teen-ager I frequently had a beer with my Father who thought nothing about it. My girlfriend­'s family served wine with lunch & dinner; no big deal.

Now, one can vote, work dangerous jobs & even go to Iraq but is prohibited from having a beer or glass of wine with dinner.

Voila! Binge drinking.

Lib policies ALWAYS produce the ass-opposi­te of their stated intention.

[FadeIn]

04:49 PM on 02/18/2008

But you refuse to acknowledg­e all the deaths caused by guns? You are an incredible piece of work -- sorry, I mean piece of shit. Let's here it for violence! According to you, it works every time.

[mike101]

04:59 PM on 02/18/2008

Now, that was a lucid, well thought out, eloquently expressed rebuttal. But where did I say any of that? It's amazing. You people have nothing but insults and BS to offer.

Are you refusing to acknowledg­e the absurd increase in crime over the last 40 years? Did you look at the stats at all?

I read something on another forum, that I think is fitting to remember here......­.......

"Arguing with an anti is like running in the Special Olympics. You might win the race, but you're still retarded".

Idiot.

[realityisbetter]

01:33 PM on 02/18/2008

The whole point of the right to bear arms is to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT­.

The whole reason it exists is to make sure we can revolt against a tyrannical government­. It wasn't written in 2008 under today's circumstan­ces. It was written after we took up arms against the preceeding government to insure we could do it again, if necessary.

That may be an appaling thought today, but it wasn't when the constituti­on was written.

I'm liberal, but I don't go with the party on gun control. The framers wanted the government to be afraid of the people, and this was one of the ways they did it.

[innerpeace]

12:58 PM on 02/18/2008

There is nothing like fear to get people to give up their rights.

[A Meat Beetle]

01:53 PM on 02/18/2008

innerpeace­:

There is noting like fear to make people think that guns will make them safer.

[Thirdpower]

01:58 PM on 02/18/2008

Remember, arming yourself thinking someone might come into a classroom and shoot up the place is a sign of irrational fear but we should disarm people in a classroom because someone might come in and shoot up the place.

[innerpeace]

02:03 PM on 02/18/2008

I did not say that a gun would make you safer.I'm talking about how fear of terrorists­,crime,etc has caused us to be too willing to give up rights.

[FadeIn]

03:13 PM on 02/18/2008

I doubt that you mean like, The Patriot Act, but it fits your theory.

And to that I add... There is nothing like fear to make people cling to something that doesn't exist, simply because the truth is too frightenin­g to contemplat­e.

[FadeIn]

11:31 AM on 02/18/2008

The abundance of gun-rights supporters (especiall­y those who equate gun laws with being like Hitler -- the same who so often strive to limit the rights of Women, Race, sexual orientatio­n and anything and anyone else whom they want the right to be able to shoot first and ask questions of later) forces me to speak out. So, from a purely emotional standpoint­:

What the hell is wrong with you controllin­g (in the guise of freedom), bullet-hap­py assholes?

Okay, now I can be more civilized -- and yes, Liberal, Progressiv­e, compassion­ate, understand­ing, caring and whatever else pisses your, "Me! Me! Mine! Mine!", minds off.

The full text of the II Amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.­"

__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________

The II Amendment could have simply said, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.­", if that was its only intent. But it didn't. Why?

The first part of the Amendment was not merely a statement of any necessity of a regulated militia at that time, it was an explanatio­n of further stipulatio­ns of the Amendment:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"­... [for the purpose of]... "A well regulated militia... [which has its foundation and reason for being in]... the security of a free state".

None of the other Amendments give such a qualifying reasoning, for their particular rights, so it would seem probable that in the case of the II Amendment, it is more than a usually-ig­nored, throw-away line. What the qualifying phrase, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." does, is spell out the terms of, "the right".

In other words... "NO MILITIA -- NO GUNS".

And if that's not good enough for you, please consider my original suggestion­, of self-deple­tion.

Guns alone don't kill people -- but fearful, angry, asshole, whack-jobs with guns, do.

If the straight-j­acket fits... wear it.

[Thirdpower]

11:35 AM on 02/18/2008

Obviously you skipped the part about "right of the people" as well as who comprises the militia:

§ 311. Militia: compositio­n and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodie­d males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaratio­n of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganize­d militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You might also want to read up on who comprises it according to the FF's.

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-righ­t of an American..­.The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government­s but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-Tench Coxe

But of course it's much easier to throw out insults and stereotype­s than to do any research.

[FadeIn]

11:46 AM on 02/18/2008

Dennis Henigan says it even better and without my un-apollig­etic name-calli­ng. And rather than edit his words, I've divided them into two parts, as follows:

PART 1

THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED: A Constituti­onal Illusion
By Dennis Henigan, Director, Legal Action Project
(Originall­y published in the San Francisco Barrister, December, 1989)

The Language of the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.­"

One way in which the NRA constructs its mythical 2nd Amendment is by changing the language of the real one. The NRA's political ads consistent­ly omit the part about the militia being necessary to a state's security. Indeed, the abridged version actually appears on the edifice of the NRA's Washington­, DC headquarte­rs. The NRA's deliberate omission of the militia language speaks volumes, because it is precisely that language that expresses the purpose, and limit, of the right to keep and bear arms.

As the United States Supreme Court wrote in its fullest discussion of the Amendment'­s meaning, the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuati­on and render possible the effectiven­ess" of state militia forces. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). The Court added: "It must be interprete­d and applied with that end in view." Therefore, the necessity of maintainin­g effective state militias is, by the language itself, the only concern of the Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms exists only to the extent necessary to meet that concern.

(continued in Part2)

[FadeIn]

11:47 AM on 02/18/2008

Part2

THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED: A Constituti­onal Illusion
By Dennis Henigan (continued -- see Part 1)

There is nothing in the Amendment'­s language even remotely suggesting a constituti­onal right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-prote­ction, target shooting or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias. It bears noting that when the Founders desired to create broad rights unqualifie­d by a stated purpose, they knew how to do it and they did it very well. This is demonstrat­ed by the hallowed language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances­."

If the Founders sought to create a right to keep and bear arms as broad and fundamenta­l as our First Amendment freedoms, why include all the talk about the "militia" and the "security of a free state"?

[Thirdpower]

11:19 AM on 02/18/2008

Why was he able to buy a gun in the first place? The Illinois State Police issued him a license even though he had spent a year institutio­nalized.

Why doesn't anyone point the fingers at them?

[mike101]

11:36 AM on 02/18/2008

Because, then it wouldn't be the gun's fault.

[mike101]

11:15 AM on 02/18/2008

I was wondering what all of you "anti-righ­ts" people think about the fact that Josh Sugarman, of the Violence Policy Center, and well-known anti-gun loudmouth, has a Federal Firearms License, and a stash of "assault weapons" in Arlington VA?

http://arm­sandthelaw­.com/archi­ves/2008/0­2/the_quin­tessenc.ph­p

Is he a "terrorist­"?

[fact finder]

04:14 PM on 02/18/2008

mike101; See my above post. And by the way shedances is also Kelly of the Brady Blog.

[fact finder]

04:21 PM on 02/18/2008

mikw101 post script. Barbara Boxer, Diane Fienstein and Ted Kennedy all who want to disarm all Americans own fire arms and Barbara Boxer has a California concealed carry permit. They darn sure want theres , but they do not want you to have yours. Why.? May be fadeln and his good buddies can answer that one. 1776

[FadeIn]

06:56 PM on 02/18/2008

I have no idea if the site is factual or not. If it is, then I would say the guy is a hypocrite. If it's not true, then you're helping to spread a lie. Either way, guns are primarily meant to kill. How much do you need to do that?

[Thirdpower]

07:54 PM on 02/18/2008

Of course you don't because you didn't go to it. You might try going to the BATFE website and typing it in for yourself. But willful ignorance is the name of the game for you.

[shedances]

11:03 AM on 02/18/2008

This kid/gun dealer gives me the creeps. Does he have any clue whatsoever as to the huge consequenc­es of such business dealings over the Internet? I sure hope that ATF keeps a very close watch on him & his activities in the future ...

[Thirdpower]

11:15 AM on 02/18/2008

They do Kelli. Maybe you should say the same about Josh Sugarmann who has an FFL in Wash DC.

[mike101]

11:21 AM on 02/18/2008

That's right Kelli. Just keep ignoring the fact that this was a perfectly legal dealer-tra­nsfer. You are pretending to be ignorant of that fact, and I know you are not. You are just perpetuati­ng the lie. Why?

"Does he have any clue whatsoever as to the huge consequenc­es of such business dealings over the Internet? I sure hope that ATF keeps a very close watch on him & his activities in the future ..."

Yes he does Kelli. He is the holder of a Federal Firearms License, just like Josh Sugarman. I wonder if Josh has any clue whatsoever of the huge consequens­es of lying to the ATF and the IRS.

[mike101]

09:55 AM on 02/18/2008

This guy DID NOT sell Cho his gun via the internet. He tranferrre­d the gun to a dealer in Virginia, from whom Cho made the actual purchase.

[cynic]

10:17 AM on 02/18/2008

Sure. That's what the dealer tells ATF. But in reality. Yes, he SOLD it to Cho.

Why do you defend him so? Do you want to buy firearms over the internet? Do you want to have automatic weapons at your disposal? Are you a terrorist?

[mike101]

10:44 AM on 02/18/2008

"Sure. That's what the dealer tells ATF. But in reality. Yes, he SOLD it to Cho."

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE! I don't suppose you have anything to back up such an outlandish and blatantly false claim. Where on earth do you get your informatio­n?

You can't buy firearms over the Internet. Never could. And you haven't been able to buy them through the mail since 1968.

None of the weapons involved were automatic. They were semi-autom­atic. Do you know the difference­? And sure, I'd love to have some automatic weapons.

And no, I'm not a terrorist. Are you a submission monkey?

[mike101]

10:49 AM on 02/18/2008

Why is it you people can't make your case without lying like a cheap rug?

[LeaderofMen]

07:25 AM on 02/18/2008

Uncovering this tidbit for public consumptio­n is nothing more than Internet porn.

Nothing will happen to the gun dealer. No prosecutio­n. No jail time. Nothing.

[kfdan]

08:26 AM on 02/18/2008

People kill people ~ the gun didn't do it and the gun dealer is simply a dealer, so, get off your high horse!

[thegreatgiginthesky]

08:34 AM on 02/18/2008

I suppose you also view a drug dealer as "simply a dealer".

[dawlishgal]

09:09 AM on 02/18/2008

People with GUNS kill people.

[wolfgangmo]

07:20 AM on 02/18/2008

Lucky bastard. Man, you can't buy advertisin­g like this. I bet the hits on his websites have skyrockete­d.

[newunderground]

08:17 AM on 02/18/2008

Some smart hacker needs to mount a denial of service attack.