· 88 comments · Save ·
Questions & Help Mar 13, 2026 at 7:12 PM

Justice Department charges man accused of selling gun to Old Dominion University shooter

Posted by katrinakt8

https://apnews.com/article/old-dominion-university-shooting-rotc-3e9049d15354b33bba37035a98a5299f
🚩 Report this post

88 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 +458
Oh! I didn’t know we could charge people who sell guns privately! Weird that the Justice Department has suddenly decided to adopt this position.
458
RepresentativeOk2433 Mar 13, 2026 +267
Did you read the article? He stole the gun from someone's car and sold it to him.
267
awwc Mar 13, 2026 +129
Its the mother f***** with the improperly secured firearm in a goddamn car.... Lock. Your. Damn. Guns. Up.
129
resiste-et-mords Mar 13, 2026 +66
And no, locking your car does not count as locking it up. Nor does having a "lockbox" in there count as locking it up. People need to stop storing their guns in their trucks.
66
Dillweed999 Mar 13, 2026 +23
I hear the kids call em "loot boxes"
23
AnxiousTrans Mar 13, 2026 +26
My old boss had his gun lockbox stolen from his truck. Twice. In the company parking lot.🙃
26
CeaseBeingAnAsshole Mar 13, 2026 +5
He didnt like, bolt it to the floor or something the 2nd time?
5
AnxiousTrans Mar 13, 2026 +7
Nope. Pretty sure he just got a new lockbox for under his seat after the first theft. Unclear if he learned his lesson after the 2nd theft.
7
knivesofsmoothness Mar 14, 2026 +6
Fool him he can't get fooled again!
6
jadbronson Mar 13, 2026 +3
Why's that? You didn't bother checking one more time?
3
[deleted] Mar 14, 2026 +1
[deleted]
1
rubywpnmaster Mar 14, 2026 +4
Yes the guy who parks a car/truck with 3 NRA stickers and a Let’s Go Brandon sticker are more likely than not to have unsecured firearms in their truck. It’s like having a Gold Bullion Club of America sticker on the car.
4
Schrodinger_cube Mar 14, 2026 +2
" slaps anime stickers on bumper." save on getting your guns stolen because your lazy with this one simple trick. Ya i don't think many people who actively seek validation by advertising there gun brands would make this play but if you make your car look like an engineering or or construction vehicle you can get away with some interesting parking locations and stand less of a chance of being targeted for gun theft i bet.
2
BullShitting-24-7 Mar 14, 2026 +1
He probably boasted about it “as a warning.” And instead folk heard, “free gun.”
1
FarmingGeeks Mar 14, 2026 +5
As someone who shoots, hunts and supports the 2A, I totally agree with this. Quit leaving you gun in the GD vehicles. Quit putting gun mfr stickers, Ducks unlimited, browning, realtree, etc etc etc on your vehicle, it makes you a target.
5
iswearihaveasoul Mar 13, 2026 +8
It's illegal to conceal carry your gun in a ton of different places. If you want to run into the post office or a rest stop, it's gotta be locked in your car.
8
rab-byte Mar 14, 2026 +1
My wife and I always joke when we see a Glock or sig sticker in a truck window. Like you’re basically asking to get your window busted out whether you have a gun in there or not. Remember when you were supposed to speak softly or something…
1
RazorRamonReigns Mar 13, 2026 +8
When I lived in Idaho I'd see posts constantly of dipshits getting thier firearms stolen. Suddenly these idiots understand victim blaming lol. As someone who was raised around guns I cannot stand these morons.
8
jaunty411 Mar 14, 2026 +1
Isn’t that the running joke among firearms owners. Their guns were all “lost/stolen” if anyone asks.
1
Slugtard Mar 13, 2026 -8
Yea, blame the victim not the thief!
-8
Far-Conflict-1172 Mar 13, 2026 +4
Well there wouldn't be a pile of dead bodies had said "victim" secured his gun the way it should have been.
4
awwc Mar 13, 2026 +3
Shut the f*** up. Adults are talking.
3
yami76 Mar 13, 2026 +165
The gun was stolen and had its serial obliterated… take a look at the article.
165
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 +62
If you do a little bit of looking, you’ll find that gun dealers who illegally or improperly sell weapons to people who go on to commit mass shootings are rarely prosecuted. The only other examples I could find were in the wake of Muslim shooters. Here’s some examples where the dealer was not prosecuted when the transaction should have been blocked. Dayton, Ohio, 2019. El Paso, Texas, 2019. Charleston, South Carolina, 2015. After looking at 20 mass shootings, 15 featured weapons that were obtained legally. Of the remaining five, two were Muslim shooters. The gun dealer was prosecuted in both cases. This is what’s left.
62
Highlifetallboy Mar 13, 2026 +30
Do you have a source for those 3 transactions being the ffl's fault and not NICS?
30
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 -47
You can take a look for them yourself, big guy. I’ve given you a roadmap.
-47
themightybamboozler Mar 13, 2026 +36
You could slice through cardboard like butter with that edge bro
36
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 -24
I’d rather be edgy than rely on random people to prove my point for me.
-24
Highlifetallboy Mar 13, 2026 +23
I'm asking you to prove your point. And you won't. Coward
23
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 +2
No, you’re asking me to prove **your** point. And I won’t.
2
Highlifetallboy Mar 13, 2026 +15
You made a claim. I'm asking for you to cite a source to back it up. 
15
venom259 Mar 13, 2026 +18
Selling a gun without its serial number is still very illegal.
18
__mud__ Mar 13, 2026 +16
Weird thing about illegal things is it only matters if you get prosecuted
16
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 +21
Who suggested it wasn’t?
21
Mcjoshin Mar 13, 2026 +6
So what, you’re advocating not charging people who sell guns illegally because it hasn’t been done much in the past?
6
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 -5
Do you normally struggle with sarcasm?
-5
Mcjoshin Mar 13, 2026 +8
So you’re just here to be a complete d***** canoe with no actual stances? Got it.
8
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 -1
After reading a pretty clearly worded statement, you came up with a totally contradictory argument. Your inability to identify sarcasm is a “you problem.” If pointing that out hurts your feelings, maybe you should consider getting off the Internet.
-1
Mcjoshin Mar 14, 2026 +4
You’ve been an ass-hat in every comment you’ve made. You made a sarcastic comment about charging people who sell guns privately when that’s not the issue at hand. Someone called you out on your comment and you proceeded to list all the cases where people weren’t charged (while ignoring context of this case). So I asked you for a clarification on your stance since it seems your argument is that because sellers in other cases weren’t charged, this one shouldn’t be either. Or are you arguing more private sellers should be charged? It’s not clear, because you seem to lack the ability to make a coherent point or respond to clarification questions without being an asshat, which is a you problem.
4
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 14, 2026
You didn’t ask for clarification, you intentionally misinterpreted my position. Sorry you don’t like my tone, I guess. Sadly, I couldn’t give any fewer fucks about how you feel about it.
0
Aporkalypse_Sow Mar 13, 2026 +6
Remember the friend of Rittenhouse that gave him the gun he used to go harass people? He was arrested for armed robbery back in December.
6
zzyul Mar 14, 2026 +4
Jury with all the facts ruled he used the gun in self defense. But I’m sure you have more details than they did.
4
lastmonkeytotheparty Mar 14, 2026
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/man-who-gave-kyle-rittenhouse-his-gun-stole-jewelry-from-facebook-marketplace-sellers-in-high-school-parking-lot-police-say/
0
Bagellord Mar 14, 2026 -1
When you say transaction should have been blocked, do you mean where the background check didn't come back denied? If so, why would the dealer be prosecuted for a failing on the government's part?
-1
This_Is_Fine12 Mar 13, 2026 +44
The guy sold a stolen gun, so that's someone who you can arrest. This isn't just some random private sale from a law abiding gun owner.
44
running_wired Mar 13, 2026 -35
No such thing as a stolen gun. A gun is a right, not a piece of property.
-35
This_Is_Fine12 Mar 13, 2026 +17
What? That makes 0 sense.
17
Sleepingguitarman Mar 13, 2026 +14
That's bait
14
JustSmallCorrections Mar 13, 2026 +10
....come on now.
10
igetproteinfartsHELP Mar 13, 2026 +39
Why do people make such comments without even reading the article. I can't believe such misinformation is a top level comment on such a volatile case.
39
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 -14
What’s the misinformation? Are you suggesting that gun dealers are *always* prosecuted when a gun sale is discovered to be illegal or improper? Because that would most definitely be misinformation.
-14
igetproteinfartsHELP Mar 13, 2026 +16
Where did i say that? Just putting words in my mouth. Do better
16
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 -4
I asked you to clarify what you thought about this comment is misinformation. Thank you for refusing to do so.
-4
bambinoboy Mar 13, 2026 +6
The misinformation is that it’s always been illegal to sell illegal guns, private or not, whereas you’re framing that it’s not illegal
6
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026 -1
What does the legality of an action have to do with the frequency that such action is *prosecuted?* An illegal sale that *isn’t prosecuted* doesn’t make the sale **legal.** Your misinterpretation isn’t misinformation.
-1
bambinoboy Mar 13, 2026 +7
The misinformation is the suggestion that the DOJ "suddenly decided" private gun sellers can be charged. Illegal gun sales, including unlicensed dealing or selling to prohibited persons, have been illegal under federal law for decades. Enforcement frequency doesn't change the fact that the law already existed.
7
Trick-Set-1165 Mar 13, 2026
Again, you’re misinterpreting my words. We frequently choose not to prosecute sellers for illegal sales. A law we choose not to apply is just as useful as no law at all. My problem is not that we’ve “suddenly chosen” to prosecute *all* illegal sales, it’s that we’ve selectively chosen to prosecute *this one,* instead of *actually* prosecuting all illegal sales.
0
bambinoboy Mar 13, 2026 +3
“Weird that the Justice Department has suddenly decided to adopt this position.” Your original claim was that the DOJ “suddenly decided” this. That’s what I corrected. The law already existed. Whether it’s enforced often enough is a different debate.
3
PatchyWhiskers Mar 13, 2026 -46
So much for the second amendment, right Republican chums?
-46
HeadyBunkShwag Mar 13, 2026 +3
You can be a drunk, drinking from the moment you wake up to the moment you pass out and your guns rights are intact. If you use medical marijuana at night before bed you’ll be charged with several felonies for possessing a firearm in your house.
3
P0Rt1ng4Duty Mar 13, 2026 +3
You are not correct. It is illegal to have a firearm on your person if you have been consuming alcohol.
3
NHDraven Mar 13, 2026 +10
That is state by state.
10
HeadyBunkShwag Mar 13, 2026 +4
Difference here is that you can have it in your house legally while wasted. You smoke a joint now that guns become a felony for you to have in your own home.
4
P0Rt1ng4Duty Mar 13, 2026 +1
This is one of the things the supreme court was looking at. Did they finally publish their decision?
1
HeadyBunkShwag Mar 13, 2026 +4
Looks like it’s still on going. Hopefully they make the right decision on it, but who knows anymore
4
ZealousidealType1144 Mar 13, 2026 +1
Not in the fifth circuit (Texas, LA, etc)
1
ISniffFeet1 Mar 13, 2026 +1
That's like saying "so much for the right to vote" when someone casts ten ballots with a stolen ID.
1
PatchyWhiskers Mar 13, 2026 -4
Oh is that what’s on right wing media right now? Lol
-4
ISniffFeet1 Mar 13, 2026 +4
No that's just as ridiculous as what you said - the second amendment certainly wouldn't apply to stolen guns with defaced serial numbers the same way the right to vote doesn't apply to voting ten times with a stolen identity
4
Jae_Rides_Apes Mar 13, 2026 +9
The timeline continues to devolve.
9
Old-Fox8371 Mar 13, 2026 +2
He needs to be charged with the same charges as the terrorist. Same way the parents of mass shooters are being charged.
2
PeterBeacon Mar 14, 2026 +1
So shooter… *not* a pedophile. Got it. 
1
BWWFC Mar 13, 2026 -45
feels a little weird, but yeah, ~~a private seller selling/transferring to anyone w/o vetting?? this shouldn't be a thing. and it was stolen in the first place? omfg~~ [~~Michigan has hand gun registration~~](https://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/michigan/firearm-registration)~~, should be nation wide, and just drop exempt for long guns.~~ edit: okay, understand it was illegal from start, and would have/does, probably, happen in any state anyway.
-45
GoodOmens Mar 13, 2026 +52
The gun in question was stolen and had a filed serial number. There is no way this was going to go through a FFL Honestly depending how the original purchaser was storing it when stolen they should be questioned too. Charged if it was left unsecured in a vehicle, for instance.
52
Grow_away_420 Mar 13, 2026 +5
Can they find the original owner if it doesn't have a serial number? I assume they found the person who sold it after searching through the shooters phone and contacts. That person may not even be the one who originally stole it either.
5
radioactivebeaver Mar 13, 2026 +3
Theoretically after it was stolen it should have been reported. No serial number makes it a little tricky, but depending on the location and gun there might only be one stolen. That is if the original owner even knows it's gone to begin with. Could have been stolen in the morning and sold that same day, could have been stolen a year ago.
3
Grow_away_420 Mar 13, 2026 +8
Could have been stolen a decade or more ago and the owner is dead. There more guns than people, and they can hang around just as long. Gun that shot Kirk was a WW2 relic I believe
8
cgvet9702 Mar 13, 2026 +4
Michigan has a pistol sales registry that tracks transactions. If you, for example, move to the state, there is no requirement to register your firearms. The system is dependent on the seller reporting the transaction by submitting a written document. Which is a recent change; it used to be the buyers responsibility.
4
BWWFC Mar 13, 2026 +1
idk, 15yrs ago, had to register bringing in, not sale/buy, to the state police. has it changed?
1
ScientificSkepticism Mar 13, 2026 +4
>feels a little weird, but yeah, a private seller selling/transferring to anyone w/o vetting?? this shouldn't be a thing. In 33 states, it is. Perfectly legal. Fortunately Virginia is one of the sane states, but in most of the nation it's fine to just take cash and hand someone a gun without even seeing ID. You think it would be needless to say that that's a bad idea, but I can practically guarantee we'll have a few American gun nuts dropping by to explain why that's perfectly sensible and no, anyone who is against handing over a stack of cash for a gun without even checking a drivers license is unpatriotic or something. (proof, since people tend to react to this news with disbelief - as they probably should: [https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html](https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html)) Of course there is no national database of who owns what firearm, making private transfers like this excessively simple regardless of legality, and in fact it is against the law to even make such a database, as if facilitating the transfer of guns to criminals was somehow a twisted goal. A licensed owner buying a gun is treated the same way as a person over 21 buying a six pack of beer - they don't have to account for what happens to the gun, and no one tracks it. Which again is wild because if you buy 18 beers and can only show me 3 of them I can guess what happened, whereas if you bought 18 guns and can only show me 3 of them I have some serious questions.
4
Skyrick Mar 13, 2026 +10
It is a felony to possess a firearm with the serial number removed, like this guns was. It is a felony to modify a firearm to obscure its serial number. It is a felony to acquire a firearm with the intent to sell it without a FFL. It is illegal to try and obtain a firearm as a prohibited person. Non FFLs are prohibited from accessing NICS to run background checks on people they are selling firearms to on the federal level. With this many laws broken, what does adding more laws fix that enforcing current ones doesn’t solve?
10
ScientificSkepticism Mar 13, 2026 -1
How do you enforce the current ones, exactly? Lets see: * Can cops ask gunowners to show them their firearms, and examine them to see if the serial number was obscured or damaged? * Is there a registry of who owns which firearms, so we can see people who purchase large quantities of firearms and then later transfer them? * Is there a federal law requiring background checks in all gun transfers so guns are not sold to felons and other people prohibited from buying firearms? Of course the answer to all of these is "nope, not a chance." We "enforce" these laws when the gun is used in a crime, because there's no mechanism to stop the problem before it hits that stage. Enabling enforcement of existing laws would be a good step. Allow the government to regularly examine a gun owner's firearms and verify their condition and safe storage. Maintain a registry of firearm owners, and require background checks for transfers. This would make enforcing existing laws plausible and doable.
-1
Skyrick Mar 13, 2026 +2
1. Sorta. If you are traveling with a firearm and are stopped by the police, you are supposed to notify them and grant them access so that it can be properly secured during the interaction. 2. ATF has to be notified by the FFL if someone purchases 2 guns in a day or 3 guns in a month, so that the ATF can follow up with that information. If a non FFL sells more than 5 guns in a year to non FFLs then that has been used to show intent in court, and you can be charged with operating a FFL without a license. 3. No, as a compromise over Democrat concern over individuals being able to access NICS, no background check is required for private sales.
2
ScientificSkepticism Mar 13, 2026 +1
1. That's not at all examining guns for safe storage and to see they have not been illegally modified. 2. Of course since no record has to exist of private transfers, there's no real way to tell if someone has transferred guns without a license. In the case of the person in the OP, say they were doing the following: 1. Buying guns from contacts "on the streets" who legally bought the guns (2 a month max) for, say, 50% markup on what they bought them for. 2. Altering the guns to file off the serial number 3. Selling the guns to felons 4. If caught, claiming they "stole the gun and just sold it to a guy, it was a one off thing and I'm not an unlicensed firearm dealer"? 5. With no database of firearms it's pretty hard to track someone and see if that's happening, yes? 3. Gee, maybe that's a loophole we should close, as "cash for guns" is a f****** stupid idea.
1
Skyrick Mar 13, 2026 +2
4473’s can be tracked. Meaning that, while they can’t database what you purchased they can database how any items on the form, where the form was submitted from, and the frequency that you fill out the forms. Furthermore the ATF can access those forms at any time that they want. So if the ATF sees that you bought 4 guns, they can request the 4473 to see what they were. They just can’t database the guns themselves, well except for NFA weapons which they can. It is also worth noting that tracking straw purchases has been done in the past. That was how Fast and Furious started. The ATF went to providing guns directly to the cartels so that their sample size would be large enough that they could draw accurate conclusions because there just weren’t enough straw purchases. It isn’t that the loophole shouldn’t be closed (and since it was a compromise it isn’t really a loophole) it’s that people don’t agree on the how. Allowing anyone to run background checks on NICS would make the requirement for background checks minimal on the person selling the firearm, but would be more costly to the government. Shifting that burden to FFLs who are required to charge money for the service limits availability in rural areas, but reduces the government’s burden (FFLs are required to maintain the paperwork instead of the government). And that is the problem.
2
PatchyWhiskers Mar 13, 2026 -2
It's legal in some states, presumably not this one.
-2
Spirited-Lifeguard55 Mar 14, 2026
with the number of guns they have, im surprised it didnt fall out of a tree
0
Successful_Tap92 Mar 14, 2026
And the Clown show goes on..
0
← Back to Board