Paris Terrorist Had French Gun License

Yesterday, Adam Djaziri drove a Renault Mégane into a Paris police convoy on the Champs-Élysées in an act apparently inspired by Islamic chauvinism. Fortunately for humanity, he died for his efforts and no one was injured as a result. According to the BBC, police ” found a Kalashnikov rifle, handguns and gas bottles in the car.”

Mssr. Djaziri was “known to intelligence services.” The 31-year-old from the Parisian suburb of Argenteuil also had contact with another department of the Fifth Republic. Specifically, he had a license to own firearms.

With this bit of official French approval, Mssr. Djaziri legally owned several firearms, including what Agence France Presse calls “Kalashnikov-type assault rifles.”

Like many American gun owners, you probably think that’s a case of ignorant journalists breathlessly describing every firearm as a “Kalashnikov.” How can a French national own an AK — isn’t France the place where gun rights go to die?

No it isn’t — that’s the United Kingdom, twenty miles to the north. Gun rights are still alive for the French citizenry, although it isn’t all sunshine and beignets.

People can actually own — although not necessarily bear — a number of firearms that would make an American feel at home. The approved list includes semi-automatic rifles chambered in 7.62x39mm based on the AK design — provided they’re willing to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops, including an application process, background checks, firearms training, and even a psychological evaluation.

British writer Alan Pearce, who has enough time living and owning guns in France to write a book on the subject, puts it succinctly: “In France, having a gun is not considered odd.” Click here for TTAG’s review of French gun law.

Suffice to say, Mssr. Djaziri jumped through the requisite hoops to join a club, go through the background check and testing process, obtain a license, purchase legal semi-automatic rifles, and then followed all of the “declaration” and safe storage laws, meaning the Kalashnikov in the backseat of the Mégane may have been legally owned. Even in France.

French government officials are already giving Gallic shrugs and wringing their hands in front of cameras about that.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe expressed dismay that Djaziri was able to have a gun permit despite being on a jihadist watchlist.
“What I know at this stage is that the first weapons permit was given before this individual was flagged up,” he said in an interview with BFM television and RMC radio.
He added that “nobody can be satisfied — and certainly not me” that Djaziri had still been able to possess dangerous weapons.

There’s another possibility, of course. Djaziri might have simply have purchased a fully-automatic AK illegally on the black market.

France is apparently awash in such things, if you know that right people to ask. He was already planning to break some laws; in for a penny, in for a pound and all that. Background checks and other gun control laws don’t actually stop criminals from acquiring outlawed firearms; they simply stop people who comply with the law from getting them.

comments

  1. avatar jwtaylor says:

    So he had an AK of some type, and some home made bombs, but only used the car?

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      He just failed at terrorism much as he had failed at life. Basically, he alpha snackbared himself.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Coffee snort.

    2. avatar bunga says:

      He died in the car crashed that was apparently supposed to be his great entry into the attack committed by car, guns and bomb combo.

      1. avatar Swilson says:

        That seems to be the playbook for the recent terror attacks across Europe: mow down as many as possible in a vehicle, jump out of disabled vehicle and continue to assault everyone in sight.

        1. avatar ProfessorManque says:

          Im waiting for a drone strike on US using commecially available drones souped up and weaponized… would be hilarious if ten of them hit say an NRA convention or of course best of all take out President Hump(Secret Service be aware this is not a credible threat, just another jackball fantasizing online, I would never harm the president(if for no other reason than Pence is no less retrograde and awful while he is far more competent : D) so please go back to whatever shenanigans yall get up to these days : O– — —- -C====3

        2. avatar ProfessorManque says:

          I like that guy in London who just started hacking away with a machette killing the soldier and others, just covered in gore, now THAT’S terror, none of this lame USAF blowin civilians to smithereens that no one ever sees, lets get some zombie-core terror for Halloween, maybe in a mall teeming with ignorant Trump zombies, dimwitted and dullard-eyed one minute and heads rolling down the escalator the next : D

      2. avatar ProfessorManque says:

        Sniper is good too, I mean those guys in DC did well, though you should NEVER get caught, I mean just vary the timing and move around, it like the pro serial killers, nearly impossible to catch unless something flukey happens…
        But thats pretty high level terror, folks heads exploding next to you, and you NEVER KNOW when or where or to who its gonna happen… as horrific as living under US drone terror but less fire power of course, still would be good for Americans to get a taste of their own medicine again, 16 years since Al Qaeda gave Americans a tiny bit of their comeuppance…

    3. avatar jwm says:

      Seat Belts! Use them or fail in your jihad.

    4. avatar ProfessorManque says:

      US government/military are by far the biggest terrorists both in history and currently, especilly the USAF who specialize in blowing defenseless people to smithereens men, women and children and a special shout out to the apex of terrorist coward Americans who kill by remote control!

      Constrast this with Al Qaeda courageously retaliating against the US military HQ and giving away their lives for the mission…

      You phoney patriot blowhards take a break now from smearing all of the US militarys victims as terrorists and cheerleading every US military victimizer as a hero, and simply look at the reality, it’s right there in front of your face as plain as day, a child could immediately make the distinction…

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “…especilly the radical Islamists who specialize in blowing defenseless people to smithereens men, women and children and a special shout out to the apex of terrorist coward Islamists who kill by remote control!”

        FIFY.

        1. avatar ProfessorManque says:

          What’s your point, that the USAF and drone pilots in USAF and CIA employ the same moral standards as Al Qaeda?

          I agree with crucial distinctions.

          1.) Al Qaeda has killed a molehill of folks while the US military and CIA have a mountain of corpse on their hands

          2.) The US ATTACKS other folks and presumes to set up bases all over the world in their homes, while Al Qaeda DEFENDS itself and does not presume to violate other folks sovereignty

          3.) USAF and drone operators are cowards who kill at a great distance with impunity while Al Qaeda killed close up knowing they were giving their lives away to complete to admirable mission of retaliating against the terrorist cowards of the US military in the Pentagon

  2. avatar MintMar says:

    While he was driving his weapon, I guess he had a driver license as well. Right?

  3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    So naturally the government response will be that they need to punish every other gun license holder in France instead of owning their fukup.

    1. avatar MintMar says:

      No. Now France will demand to punish every other gun licence holder in European Union.

  4. avatar LP says:

    As a french citizen and a proud gun owner, I have to say that this kind of “incident” will have bad repercutions for us, abiding citizens. The Europe already wants us to give up 30 rounds magazines for 10 max ones.
    And, BTW, bearing a gun in France when you’re not Police/Gendarmerie (everywhere/everytime) or Military (only in service) is not authorized at all. You just have the right to own it, and the right to bring it to the shooting range. And during the transportation, it has to be locked, so you can’t use it without losing many minutes.

    1. avatar AndyinMA says:

      Very interesting! I always assumed France was more like Britain in this regard.

    2. avatar bunga says:

      It’s not Europe, the #EUGunBan was pushed through by France and UK. Blame your own government.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive#Amending_Directive_.28EU.29_2017.2F853

      1. avatar Petr says:

        That’s exactly what France was going for – oppress its citizens but mollify them by saying “it’s not our fault, that’s EU’s doing”.
        Apparently it worked.

      2. avatar xx_yy_zz says:

        The “funniest” thing was when in a member state of EU the new law that complies with the new magazine capacity regulations was worded that way, that it wouldn’t ban the magazines, it would ban every firearm capable to use such a magazine. Somehow sportshooters and armed security personel weren’t too happy.

  5. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “Mssr. Djaziri was ‘known to intelligence services.'”

    That phrase is my favorite, followed very closely by “known to police”, so much so that I always skim these attack reports first looking for that nugget. I’m rarely disappointed.

    Think about that: “known to intelligence services.” I’m not saying every such person is guilty or plotting something, but they probably are. We’re not talking about parking tickets here, or even innocuous phone calls swooped up in a national, statist, surveillance net.

    We’re talking about very bad dudes that the spy guys know about and devote resources to. It’s just astonishing that such people, going all the way back to the 9-11 hijackers, still operate with impunity prior to their attacks.

    1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      It’s really hard to let the security services swoop in and arrest someone just because they think he might be up to no good, and still live in a nation where the citizenry are free and their rights protected.

      It’s probably easier to prevent people with ill intent from coming into the country in the first place. That won’t stop certain ideas from going viral, of course.

      You can do with that what you will.

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      I’m not saying every such person is guilty or plotting something, but they probably are.

      Have you seen the recently FOIA’ed FBI file on Gary Gygax, one of the inventors of Dungeons and Dragons?

      Remember when the FBI classified Juggalos as a “loosely organized hybrid gang?”

      Sometimes all it takes to be on such a list is to have an overly bloated intelligence apparatus that needs to justify its existence.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Or the FBI investigation into the lyrics of “Louie, Louie”?
        https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Louie%2C+Louie%22+fbi+investigation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    3. avatar bunga says:

      Do not forget that France has been since 2015 in perpetual STATE OF EMERGENCY which effectively allows the state agents to infringe on people’s basic rights, including no-warrant house searches.

      Now the new government proposes new law that would on one hand allow the state of emergency to be lifted, on the other hand preserve most of the state of emergency special authority for the state agents.

      Goodbye civil rights.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        So, they need 3-4 of these incidents every year to keep the police state going?

        1. avatar bunga says:

          We had police state here during communism in Czechoslovakia. Say what you want but those bastards were effective.

          What France is getting seems to be loss of civil rights without the effectiveness inherent to a police state.

          That will probably come later. Now the left wing government will curb the rights without delivering any added security and in four years new extreme right government will utilize it for its own goals.

    4. avatar neiowa says:

      Think there is ANY American not known to the NSA? They have you on their servers if you communicate via _______.

    5. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      Careful what you wish for. There are plenty of incompetent people in government, with lots of power. As such, I wouldn’t be surprised if, for example, they looked at the hate / extremist group list compiled by the SPLC and accepted it as valid without questioning it. I mean, even the Oath Keepers are on that list. How long before governments make use of such lists and start surveilling or arresting people, for no other reason than being put on a list by some (most likely libtard) idiot?

    6. avatar Southern Cross says:

      My favourite in my part of the world is in police reports you hear “the alleged assailants were of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern appearance”.

      This description occurs on average 4-5x more than any other demographic and moreso when that demographic is about 5-10% of the total population.

    7. avatar Hannibal says:

      In order to properly watch someone you need a dedicate team of about a dozen agents. Multiply that times the number of people ‘known’ to police and you’d probably need to deputize the entire population to maintain the watch on everyone else.

    8. avatar Big Bill says:

      It should be understood that, thanks to the NSA, pretty much every adult American is “known to intelligence services.” That doesn’t mean much any more.
      And because I have traffic tickets (I’ve been driving since the 60s), and those tickets are in the “system,” I’m “known to the police,” as well. How many of us are in the same position?
      Does that mean I should have my guns taken away? That I should be followed by a security person?
      Of course not.
      But this is what passes for journalism, today. Make people afraid; they media is in league with the government (this isn’t a “conspiracy,” and it doesn’t take much to see that), and the government loves fear, because it allows the government to pass laws that restrict the populace.

  6. avatar ColdNorth says:

    “What I know at this stage is that the first weapons permit was given before this individual was flagged up,”

    This will soon be followed by, “Better just add more restrictions to all the regular gun owners.”

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Why wasn’t his French gun license revoked? “If you revoke the authorisation of someone who is under surveillance, they’re going to know why.”

    Pas de merde, l’inspecteur Clouseau.

    If they’re so damn dangerous that they’re on a terror watch list, is it better to let them kill a bunch of people rather then letting them know that they’re under suspicion? Or is the entire watch list a scam?

    1. avatar kevin says:

      Duh, Ralph, just revoking his gun license wouldn’t have done a thing except tip him off.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Viva la France…you dumb Frogs. “Known to gendarmes” sez it all mon ami. How about no guns for Moose-lims?

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      What good would that do? Almost every Islamic terror attack is carried out with a non-firearm weapon or illegally-obtained guns. Doesn’t seem like banning guns for them would do much to solve the problem.

  9. avatar The Duke says:

    WOW look how effective the uber strict European gun laws are at preventing “gun violence”! Even the government watch lists will prevent terrorists for easily acquiring firearms! We should adopt their practices immediately, for the children!

    Or maybe the left has just been talking out their “downward facing sunshine holes”

  10. avatar rt66paul says:

    Just because you lean differently in your beliefs to the government you live under does not mean that you are going to murder people and do other terrorist acts. Limiting gun permits to people that only believe the party line is not a free society, it is a totalotarien regime.

  11. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    I don’t understand why all these countries in Europe where they don’t really have any civil rights doesn’t just ban Muslims.

    They already have a bunch of laws banning hate speech. They don’t even have to ban Muslims. They just have to enforce their hate speech laws against them.

  12. avatar MarkPA says:

    Good post. Needs to be a cornerstone in our rebuttal. IF a nation wants some level of gun-control it needs to pick the level. It’s either: No-issue; Won’t-issue; May-issue; or, Shall-issue. Pick-out whatever level and it’s precise scheme you like; it’s going to be one of these. Pick one.

    For the US, the voters ought to realize that No-issue is out-of-the-question. There would be civil war first. Prospects for Won’t-issue aren’t much better. That leaves May- or Shall-; problem is, France has May-issue and the US is already mostly Shall-issue (or hardly any control at all). Obviously, May- or Shall- still means more than 1 gun for every man, woman and child in the country. Plenty of guns for everyone. Once the gun is in the closet it can be brought-out and borne for whatever purpose its possessor chooses, including terrorism or crime.

    Everyone who wants a gun will either: qualify under the May- or Shall- scheme; or, know someone who does so qualify. The supply of guns can’t be constricted by May- or Shall- to a level low enough to impede a determined terrorist or criminal.

    This is especially so when the group you target to restrict is also a politically FAVORED group. Think of the phrases: “No guns for Negros”; “No guns for Muslims”. The former policy is antithetical in America just as the later is antithetical in France. Just try to impose a stringent May-issue policy to restrict Blacks in the US or Muslims in France who have CLEAN records; the outrage would end any such attempt. (In either case, I would oppose any such attempt on principle.)

  13. avatar W says:

    Of course they have and have had firearms in France. They have IPSC.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN05-jPUSVg

    If any journalists are reading this, the firearm in the video is not a Glock, AK47, or AR15. It is another type.

  14. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    Yeah, like criminals and nut jobs bend over backwards to obey any law. See how well it works in commie kalifornia if you doubt me.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email