In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Border Patrol agents shot in Laredo with semi-auto

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited May 2003 in General Discussion
Border Patrol agents
shot in Laredo
Suspect in custody allegedly hit officers with semi-automatic rifle


By Jon Dougherty
c 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A pair of U.S. Border Patrol agents were shot and wounded during a traffic stop in Laredo, Texas, by a suspect armed with an SKS semi-automatic rifle.

Police said the two agents were investigating a shooting incident around 11 p.m. Sunday in the 2400 block of Boston St. in west Laredo when a suspect, Jesus Arias Jr., allegedly opened fire on their vehicle. One report said one agent was shot in the arm and shoulder, the other in the lower back, but Border Patrol officials would not confirm details.

Mike Herrera III, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Laredo sector told WorldNetDaily the agents, whose names have not been released, were taken to Mercy Hospital locally. He said one of the agents has been released, while the other remains hospitalized in stable condition.

One source familiar with the investigation said Arias shot at the agents from behind and that the bullet holes - which numbered at least three - in their vehicle, a pick-up truck, reflect the angle of the attack.

The source said the agents may have been checking or replacing ground sensors used by the Border Patrol to detect illegal-immigrant foot traffic when the call for a shooting came in.

Juan Rivera, a public information officer with the Laredo Police Department, said Arias, 19, was arrested around 1 p.m. Monday in Laredo. Rivera said Arias is a U.S. citizen and was not in the country illegally.

The source told WorldNetDaily the weapon used to attack the agents was an SKS semi-automatic rifle with its barrel shortened and its stock replaced with a pistol grip.

It was unclear whether the overall length of the rifle was legal under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regulations; a spokesman for the agency told WorldNetDaily rifles cannot be less than 16 inches in length.

The Border Patrol falls under the new Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32306

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Comments

  • Options
    BOBBYWINSBOBBYWINS Member Posts: 7,810
    edited November -1
    Maybe someone can expain.
    If, for example,I cut down a .243 rifle to less than 16" barrel length
    (Which is min.legal length),and then install a pistol grip or modify the existing stock into a grip,and wind up with an overall length of less than 26"(min.overall length),why is this any different than say a Savage Striker model 516SAK which has a 14" barrel and 22.5" overall? Why is one legal and the other VERY NOT?


    I recently cut down a 20 ga.H+R break action.
    before I did,I asked 4 different lawdogs (all friends) about the legal lengths.3 had no clue,1 "thought" it was 18"barrel,24"overall.
    Anybody have a H+R 20ga.cheap so I can swap barrels and start over?

    IT'S WHAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THEMSELVES THAT MAKES THEM AFRAID.
  • Options
    offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Guns that come from the factory have a bit more leeway than guns you start sawing on yourself. 18" barrels are standard on police-type shotguns. I had an 870 18" gun and put pistol grips on it, no problem. As far as I know, 18" is the minimum for rifles too. If you have a 16" barrel, it has to have 2" of flashhider or muzzle brake on there, and welded on for post-ban guns. Not sure about pre-bans.

    Life NRA Member

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
  • Options
    LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Another "assault weapon" incident as the "assault weapons" debate heats up in Congress. Funny how that always happens.

    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • Options
    SilverBoxSilverBox Member Posts: 2,347
    edited November -1
    Its 16" barrel length for rifles.

    I think mostly is because firearms are classed as either pistol (concealable) or rifle [or shotgun pretty much same category as rifle] (non-concelable) and the checks and controls for each are different, I'm not sure how different they are at the federal level, but in alot of states the controls and checks and ages for possesion of the 2 types are very different.
  • Options
    tesla85tesla85 Member Posts: 728 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:The source said the agents may have been checking or replacing ground sensors used by the Border Patrol to detect illegal-immigrant foot traffic when the call for a shooting came in.
    I recon taht they should use mines instead of "ground sensors".

    When they come to get your GUNS, make sure to give them the AMMO first!!!
  • Options
    IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I second that, tesla! Nice tall fence; two in fact, with a minefield in between, would reduce the illegal alien problem to almost nothing in a matter of hours. Eliminates much of the drug, illegal alien and terrorist traffic. Sounds like a winner to me. Of course the first some fool gets through the first fence and steps on a mine, all the bleeding hearts will want to sue. Being a liberal ought to be a capital crime . . . .
  • Options
    ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    The problem with mines is that they have a nasty tendency to not discriminate who they mutilate and, being inanimate objects, can't really prevent themselves from being moved or defused.
    The solution to the problem is not a fence (which can be climbed) or any other sort of non-reactive, immobile defense. The Maginot Line showed us the wonders of that line of thinking.
    We just need to increase the budget for the Border Patrol to enhance training, new hiring, and employee retention. Nothing beats a thinking man or woman on the ground.
  • Options
    oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Enough fence or enough people to really do the job would cost a fortune, maybe even as much as the welfare and other benefits illegals come here to get! If they couldn't get jobs and benefits and had NO hope of US citizenship for themselves or their children born here the tide would slow to a trickle. You can lay most of this right at the feet of the vote pandering, "bleeding heart" "diversity"
    democrips and their allies, the hate America multiculturalists, and the spineless repubs who go along with an outrageous immigration policy. There's a lot more to this, but it's after midnight and my wife is calling me from the bedroom.

    Liberals... can't have a rational policy with 'em, can't shoot 'em!
    Yet.

    Oughtsix
  • Options
    BOBBYWINSBOBBYWINS Member Posts: 7,810
    edited November -1
    Oughtsix,
    BULLSEYE!!!!!

    IT'S WHAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THEMSELVES THAT MAKES THEM AFRAID.
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    You cant stop the illegals, the Prez of Mexico is our "FRIEND"

    Pepe_stand3.jpg

    "A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows"
    BIG DOG
    wheelie.gif
    1nat12an.gif
  • Options
    chappsynychappsyny Member Posts: 3,381 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    If you want to stop the illegals from streaming across the border then we need to step up the armed citizen patrols along the border. If we catch them coming across then we can stop them. If they want to try to make a run for it then the citizens should be authorized to use deadly force. We're being invaded, drastic measures are necessary.

    New Hampshire, USA - "Live Free or Die!!!"
  • Options
    WagionWagion Member Posts: 2,464 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not really sure if I want to bring this up but....

    What about using military forces along the border down there? Rotate them through on 3 month tours use all branches.....

    The way I look at it is this we have one of if not the longest peaceful border in the world with the country to the north of us (that would be Canada for those of you in the south that think PA, OH, NY, MI, RI, and the rest of them damm yankees are from another country [:D] ) but our border to the south is not peaceful it is being breched everyday both my illegal imagrants and illegal materials. I do not agree with outlawing any imagration but why not control it a whole lot more if you have the propper papers or reasons you will be allowed in legaly ( that way people can also be better helped and tracked down if there is a need to deport them)

    I see the use of armed forces (military) along our borders as a much better alternative than other ideas. They will not be being used against AMERICAN civilian which I would not like to see but would be doing the job they do protecting the country form forigen threats

    If force ain't work'n... Your not use'n nough of it
Sign In or Register to comment.