Roving gun battle starts in Theater District, ends in front of Roxbury police station

Updated 6:30 p.m. with additional info from Boston Police.

Stanley Staco reports somebody in a white Jaguar fired some rounds at another car outside 274 Tremont St. around 3 a.m. Around 4:30 a.m., somebody caught up with the car on Washington Street in Roxbury, right in front of the B-2 police station, and opened fire, hitting its three occupants.

Boston Police report officers coming out of the station parking lot heard the gunshots and saw a gray car speeding away from the side of the Jaguar.

Officers say the three wounded men were taken to local hospitals and are expected to recover.

As officers were pursuing the suspect's gray motor vehicle, officers observed the suspect crash into a trash receptacle and a utility pole after losing control of his vehicle in the area of Washington Street & Walnut Park. With his car stopped, the suspect quickly exited his car in an effort to flee the area on foot. While running behind the suspect, officers observed the suspect reach into his waist area, pull out what appeared to be a firearm and toss it to the ground. Upon seeing the firearm, officers promptly discontinued their foot pursuit in order to seize and secure the firearm.

A short time later, responding officers were able to locate the suspect who was found running in the area of 30 Walnut Park.

Eric Davis, 28, of Dorchester, was charged with assault with intent to murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, carrying a loaded firearm on a public way, resisting arrest and driving to endanger. Davis is not a stranger to Boston Police.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Out of curiosity, how exactly

Out of curiosity, how exactly would one make it harder for illegal guns to get into hands of people that are illegally obtaining these guns?

Where there's a will, there's a way.

The problem isn't necessarily the guns, it's the people using them.

You are willing to curtail

You are willing to curtail the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain means to defend themselves on a hypothesis.

The 2nd amendment doesn't specifically state "guns" it states "arms". The real purpose of the amendment is to guarantee citizens the right to, and means, of self defense. Both things which the monarchy did not want the colonial rabble to have.

The constitution however does make reference to "cannon" under sections pertaining to issuing letters of marque for fighting piracy and warfare. Therefor one can infer that the framers never intended citizens to own "cannon" caliber arms without commission in a time of war or in defense of piracy. So one could see limits (I guess what's considered an arsenal license these days?) on what's designated cannon caliber weaponry 12.7mm+ (.50 caliber) by the military and perhaps fully automatic arms.

How about

we institute smarter background checks and waiting periods, while relaxing LTC's?

How about we better track private sales and illegal, stolen weapons? While making it easier for people with a long, proven history of responsibility (higher licensing, more safety classes taken) to get fast tracked to purchases?

MA is got some pretty good laws, while probably needing to lighten up on responsible LTC. The problem becomes when people only need to go up to a trade show in NH, or down to VA to buy freely, and bring back weapons to sell on the street black market.

There's a middle to be found, but the second you try to have the discussion the tin foil hat brigade comes out worrying of FEMA camps, or lobbyists astroturf the effort, claiming the 2nd amendment is going away.

Guns don't kill people, people do. So lets make sure they live up to their responsibilities as gun owners, right?

Once Upon a Time

The 2nd amendment only says people can have guns for the purpose of being in a "well regulated militia". That dates to a time when you needed to self-equip in order to join said militias. You don't need to self-equip anymore because now they have these things called National Guard armories.

Maybe you're thinking of a time

before the Supreme Court of the United States, in two separate decisions (Heller 2008; McDonald, 2010), said that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Even a string of generally liberal scholars, Laurence Tribe perhaps most notable, said a fair reading of the amendment in context says it's about individual rights.

Reasonable restrictions still kosher. I'd have no problem with universal background checks and waiting periods, even at gun shows, and mandatory life/no parole for any felony committed with a firearm. And yeah, I'll pay taxes to support the prisons.

Just as the first amendment

Just as the first amendment is about preventing Congress from establishing a religion. Who is responsible for that? The courts. Therefore, your freedom of speech, the press, right to assembly, etc. only exists as a collective right as it relates to the judicial system.

Sound absurd? No more so than your "reasoning" about the second amendment.

The problem really isn't the

The problem really isn't the guns. A gun by itself is not capable of harming a soul. Put it into the hands of someone with no regard for human life and that is where you have the problem. I understand what a gun's basic function is. But, my firearm has not harmed a soul in the years that I've possessed it.

And toothbrushes could be a problem, that's why they don't give normal toothbrushes to inmates in prison. The same people that illegally carry these firearms to harm people used toothbrushes to continue to harm people, because it's what they have available to use.

Take away guns, they will substitute one weapon for another. Next up will be swords, knives, etc.

What needs to be done is these career criminals need to be taken off the streets for good. This kid arrested in this story is a repeat offender and even with strict gun laws he can't be deterred from carrying a firearm illegally. He's the problem, not the gun.

That's a toughy

There was a movement recently, in the last few years, to create a national license to carry (not sure it was called that). It failed. Some who were against it pointed out how lax some states are with their gun laws:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/house...

I really wish we had some better process for this. There are too many people walking around with guns who have too many bad intentions. I myself like target shooting, and am beyond annoyed about the work I do to be a legal gun owner vs. those who just buy them in some shady alleyway.

Keep wondering

because unless there's a Wall Street address behind the fantasy that Scott Brown wants to go up against the NRA in an election year, you have a better shot of a World Series win for the Sox this year.

Also, if you had even the slightest clue about how the world works, you'd know that nothing can stop a person in this country from obtaining a firearm, legally or otherwise. Then again, if I grew up in Whitman or Spencer, I'd probably feel like you do also.

Ever been to a gun show?

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120427-NE...

Mass does not have this loophole. But NH isn't exactly more then a joy ride away.

New Hampshire is one of 39 states that have a gun show "loophole," which means there is no federally mandated background check requirement for any weapon sold by an unlicensed dealer. The only identification required must show the purchaser is a state resident and over age 21. If FFL dealers sell at gun shows, they still must conduct a background check.

...

Under New Hampshire law, no permit is required to purchase a handgun. A permit is required to carry a concealed weapon.

These untraceable and unlicensed guns then end up on Boston streets with the serial numbers filed off. All you need is a less reputable resident acting as a straw purchaser, which is very hard to trace back to due to no identifying record of the sale or legitimate background check / license.

There are already so many

There are already so many guns in the US that any more restrictions will just annoy people buying guns for legitimate use. Guns are even easy to make... making something illegal won't make it go away. Think about the fact that every illegal substance is readily available in every major city in the US.

Here's something else to think about: in Vermont, there are virtually no restrictions on purchasing guns. Once you're of age you can buy as many guns as you want including AKs and ARs etc. There is almost no gun crime and when it does happen it's usually some crack dealer from Springfield or NYC.

Even though it's incredibly obvious and someone else already said it: guns are not the issue.

STOP MAKING SENSE!!!

You're supposed to use magical thinking!

Such as:

If we make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, criminals will stop shooting each other.

or

If we put little serial numbers on the shell casing, people aren't smart enough to work around that and will stop shooting each other.

or

That rifle has a bayonet lug, it's way more dangerous than a similar rifle without one.

and finally

Mass has some of the most strict gun laws in the country. One more law will definitely stop the criminals from shooting each other.

Location