Talk:2021 Boulder shooting

City's Weapon Ban

Okay user XavierItzm (talk · contribs) remove the mention of the assualt weapon ban, then I added it back in with an additional source saying how it is relevant. But after some additional research, maybe some more discussion should be had. The ban included rifles and pistols, but from two sources, it might be in questions wheter it actually included the weapon used.

• From Washington Post(cited in article now)[1]: Police have yet to say whether the ordinance would have prevented him from buying or possessing the weapon within city limits....Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr declined to comment to The Washington Post, but pointed to language in the city’s code on assault weapons suggesting that the AR-556 pistol linked to the suspected shooter would have been included in the ban that was recently overturned. - Police haven't commented if it was covered, while city attorney points to text in the ordinance.
• From USA Today[2] Even if bought in Boulder, it's unclear whether it would have definitively been covered by the town’s former ban, which included many semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Unclear if it was definetly covered.

Figure should at least bring back up here on talk page. I feel it should still be mentioned but wording might need to be adjusted until we can determine for sure if it was covered. Sources are saying that some pistols were included in the ban, but whether this one was or not we need to figure out. Also see previous discussion: here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the previous discussion and per the horse's mouth, the gun was not purchased in Boulder. Which means the whole Boulder thing is political spin irrelevant to this shooting. I thank you for your thoroughness and will now delete on account of WP:UNDUE. XavierItzm (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am in process of trying to read the ordinance, if you don't mind holding off on removing. its available here [[3]], but it does say: No person shall knowingly possess or sell or otherwise transfer an illegal weapon. Wasn't strictly for purchasing. I am going to quote some stuff form it in a minute for more review. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Found better links that let me copy and paste Ordinance 8259[4] Ordinance 8245[5] I am not a lawyer, so I am just linking the text for any and all to read, and pasting relevant info for the discussion:

• Illegal weapon means an assault weapon, large-capacity magazine, multi-burst trigger activator, blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife or switchblade knife.
• 5-8-10. – Possession and Sale of Illegal Weapons. (a) No person shall knowingly possess or sell or otherwise transfer an illegal weapon.
• Assault weapon means: ..... (b) All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have any of the following characteristics: (1) Have the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip; or (2) Have a secondary protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.... (d) Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined herein.
• Sutherland Springs, Texas, November 5, 2017: a shooter killed 26 and wounded 20 at the First Baptist Church with a Ruger AR-556 assault rifle. Note: From list of shootings that they referenced, but this was with the rifle variant, not the pistol.

I see I was too late to ask you not to remove, but I've reverted it once already today, so I won't be adding it back in. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I had already deleted when I saw this post, sorry if I stepped on. Look, I am sure the ordinance says you can't possess a nuclear weapon in Boulder. So what? Boulder law also probably says it is illegal to kill 10 white people (which the guy did). So what? Evidently killing people is already illegal everywhere in the world. Are you going to cite the Bible and say: "The guy killed 10 white people even though a Commandment says "Thou shall not kill." ???? XavierItzm (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am going to ignore the mention of the Bible, nuclear weapons and laws against killing white people, because that is not what I came to talk page to discuss, nor do any sources discuss. The information about the ban was in article and you removed it saying it wasn't relevant because it was a pistol. I clarified that pistols were included in the ordinance, and then you said it is not relevant because the gun wasn't purchased in Boulder. I then updated you that both possession or purchase was mentioned in ordinance. I understand you don't think it needs a mention. Plenty of sources mention it and this is a ordinance from the relevant city itself so I think should be mentioned. I don't see how we can have a gun control section and not mention it. Also I suggest letting the discussion happen a little while longer before making reverts, would be useful for other input. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is what the text had been before it was deleted:

• Ten days before the shooting, a judge had blocked a ban on assault rifles in a lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association. The ban had been passed in Boulder in 2018 after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

That text was based on March 22nd Associated Press reports. The WPost and USA Today sources above are also relevant. If there is no original research in terms of the ordinances (WP:NOR), and there are sources that mention a similar ban in Arvada, I think you can put information about the ban back in. It would be helpful for readers to understand that the assault rifles ban relates to the issue about how Al-Issa's gun was a "pistol" and not a "rifle." There is already information about the Ruger AR-556 pistol in the gun control debate section. But all that section says now in terms of the debate is: "Particular discussion was raised over the weapon used in the shooting, a pistol which looks as if it were an AR-15 style rifle, but short. The weapon used is legally a pistol, since can be fired with one hand." This is somewhat confusing. JJMM (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should go back in, and also to clarify we should change it from "blocked a ban on assault rifles" to blocked a ban on assault weapons because it wasn't just on rifles. We'd need to update the source use as the one used I believe was before clarification on the gun used was released. The CNN[6] one works. Also that line you said was confusing, I agree could be reworded I think. I don't think the second sentence defining a pistol is needed, as it is described and said multiple times throughout article that is pistol.. "Particular discussion was raised over the weapon used in the shooting, a pistol whose design looks similar to an AR-15 style rifle but is able to be held and fired with one hand. could be an option. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and make edits with references. I will also do some research on this...just came across a Wikipedia article on Gun laws in Colorado. JJMM (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Denver Post article from March 18th explaining the assault weapons bans in Boulder and Denver. Arvada is a suburb of Denver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Boulder_shooting#cite_note-DP-Schmelzer-2021-69 JJMM (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Also forgot earlier to reply to the Arvada purchase mention. I wasn't concerned with a ban there as the Boulder ban banned possession in Boulder so that would be relevant issue. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Here's a link maybe to use to refer to ordinances without doing original research: JJMM (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Below are some options for wording about Boulder's assault weapons ban:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has provisions on semi-automatic rifle purchases that include an extensive background check and registration process, which can take months. Al-Issa purchased his Ruger AR-556 pistol 10 days after a judge blocked a 2018 Boulder ban on the possession or sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds, in a lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association. The ban, which was passed after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, was overturned because federal and Colorado state laws preempt city ordinances. Denver has an exemption to the local preemption, and thus has had an assault weapons ban since 1989.
• Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr suggested the city's ban would have prevented Al-Issa's Ruger AR-556 purchase had the ban not been overturned, although police have yet to confirm this.
• NRA member Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis Medical Center physician who is director of the university's Violence Prevention Research Program, said about the Ruger AR-556 AR-style pistol, "There's definitely no purpose for it except killing. That's what it was designed for." quoted from USA Today ref linked above JJMM (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting(hoping) for more discussion from others before I add it back in, but wasn't planning to go into too much detail, just a mention. First option seems too detailed for me, but if we used it or some version, should change purchased 10 days after, to the shooting happened 10 days after(or purchased 4(?) days after). Second option is focusing on the purchase instead of possession(in Boulder), so just adjusting that if we used. Third options seems better for article on the gun itself. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yes, should be: Al-Issa purchased his Ruger AR-556 pistol four days after a judge blocked a 2018 Boulder ban...

• From CNN ref linked to above: "In an opinion dated March 12, Boulder County District Court Judge Andrew Hartman wrote that the court found 'only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.' He added that Colorado state law preempts local governments from enacting ordinances that prohibit the possession or sale of firearms, and so provisions of Boulder's two ordinances 'are invalid.'" Thanks for your help! JJMM (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Another correction...the Garen Wintemute quote above was said by "Christopher Herrmann, a former New York City police officer and an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice." I added a different quote from Wintemute. JJMM (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The matter remains WP:UNDUE insofar as it is unrelated to this shooting and only dragged over by political speculators, including some media. Anyway the following ought to be dispositive:
It appears the Boulder law, had it been in place, would not have stopped the shooting
XavierItzm (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The gun control debate section is for relevant gun control debate discussion. Gun control discussions are always going to include political people and the media. No one is arguing or implying that the law would have stopped the shooting as clearly this guy was fully intending to break laws. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's another good source: "The gun used in the Boulder, Colorado mass killing looked like an assault-style rifle, but it's actually a pistol. That complicates the firearm definitions as lawmakers try to pass gun control laws...SIMON: 'Colorado lawmakers are considering a ban on assault-style weapons. Would this pistol, as we have to call it, be affected by what they're contemplating?' MARKUS: 'We don't know the exact language of what they're considering, but usually pistols aren't included in their definitions of assault-style weapons. The distinction seems a little ridiculous to some people, but to gun law, this does make a difference. I think that for the first time, some of these lawmakers are thinking about pistolized versions of rifles, and so I would not be surprised if there was some attempt to get at this.'" https://www.npr.org/2021/03/27/981875175/boulder-colorado-suspects-gun-reveals-limits-of-gun-control-legislation I don't know how to add this to the References box below. JJMM (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Something good to keep an eye out if any new laws are proposed, assuming we can show they were done as a result of this shooting. Any standard ref tag used above it will show up in box below. Makes it so all reference from all topics don't just go to bottom of talk page. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, trying this out: JJMM (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It is still unclear whether Al-Issa's possession of the Ruger AR-556 in Boulder would have been illegal under Boulder's assault weapons ban, or even currently under the Boulder City Municipal Code or Colorado state law. We don't know yet if Al-Issa used a 10-round, 15-round, or 30-round magazine in the shooting. The Denver Post article linked to above, which is already referenced in the gun control debate section, says, "Some retailers sell a Colorado-specific version of the gun that comes with a magazine that holds fewer than 15 rounds. State law bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. It’s unclear what kind of magazine the King Soopers suspect purchased...A gun like the Ruger AR-556 pistol was banned in Boulder until March 12, when a Boulder County District Court judge ruled the city’s ban on assault weapons and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds was illegal. The city’s definition of prohibited assault weapons included semi-automatic pistols that can accept a magazine outside of the pistol grip." The investigation will reveal more info soon hopefully. JJMM (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It is still unclear, was suggesting either way to indicate that, why I'm in no rush to add back in. We don't know what kind of magazine he had which depending could be illegal in Colorado law and the overturned Boulder law. The gun itself most likely would have been banned as well in the overturned Boulder ban but not state law. So far according to Post article you mentioned gun was illegal, magazine legality is unknown until we know it's size. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I looked at the City of Boulder Municipal Code again, and pistols that have "the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip" are considered assault weapons. So there are two issues: the gun itself and the magazine. JJMM (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: I added that on June 7, the Justice Department announced that Attorney General Merrick Garland signed proposed rule 2021R-08, "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces.'" The proposed criteria would amend Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations – ATF is accepting comments until September 8, 2021. Please keep this talk section open until at least September 9th. JJMM (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

Change Ruger AR-556 pistol to Ruger AR-556 An AR is not a pistol A pistol is a hand gun. An AR stands for automatic rifle 47.197.221.227 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: AR stands for Armalite, and the weapon was pistol style. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous writing

"... Al-Issa was found mentally incompetent to stand trial in December." `2601:200:C000:1A0:60C7:98D0:A3AE:B606 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Sourcing

I'd be grateful if Black Kite may be willing to discuss a change wherein you reverted an edit sourced to a Tweet from a sitting member of Congress (Rashida Tlaib) who mischaracterized the identity of the shooter as white in what appears to be a rush to attribute a tragedy to 'white gun ownership'. This was to be the first of a few examples of this happening that day (which may be provided as matters of record, in their own words) wherein there was a rush to call the shooter 'another white shooter' in so many words.

One must ask: given that ONLY leftwardly oriented sources are considered reliable on the list of perennial sources here, and also given that no left leaning source is likely to impugn someone pulling in their own direction: do you have suggestions on secondary sourcing for inconvenient matters of record that incontrovertibly happened? If not, do you at least see the problem that is already manifesting (and will continue to) over time? --Kkeeran (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• If something is only sourced to a Tweet, that's a problem. Find a secondary source, or it's clearly WP:UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be fair to change "Accused" to perpetrator?

We all know it was him. Just because he was found incompetent to stand trial doesn't mean he was simply "accused". I don't know I could be wrong if we want to stick to the legal sense of word. Qwexcxewq (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He becomes the perpetrator once a court finds him guilty. Wikipedia does not operate on "we all know". WWGB (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)