Authorities in Boulder, Colorado, are investigating the alleged terror plot of Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who was denied a firearm purchase due to his immigration status and allegedly turned to Molotov cocktails to carry out an attack on pro-Israel demonstrators. The incident has raised questions about the intersection of immigration law, firearms restrictions, and radicalization in the U.S.
According to an affidavit filed by the Boulder Police Department, Soliman was denied a firearm purchase because he is not a U.S. citizen. He had previously enrolled in a concealed carry class to prepare for the purchase, but his status as an illegal immigrant blocked the process. Frustrated by the denial, Soliman resorted to homemade firebombs, using YouTube to learn how to construct them. The FBI raided his home, where they discovered materials for incendiary devices, an AR-style rifle BB gun, and other evidence tying him to the attack.
The attack occurred on June 1 during the “Run For Their Lives” event, where Soliman reportedly threw two Molotov cocktails at the gathering of pro-Israel demonstrators, creating large flames and causing injuries. At least 12 victims were identified, though none of the injuries were fatal. The affidavit described the attack as planned for over a year, with Soliman expressing no remorse and indicating his intent to carry out similar acts if given the opportunity.
Legal experts and officials are now facing the challenge of determining the most appropriate charges for Soliman, who faces up to 624 years in prison if found guilty of all counts, including attempted murder, assault, and hate crimes. The case has also drawn attention to the potential for legal reforms regarding the firearms access of non-citizens, with calls for a more nuanced approach to both immigration status and law enforcement practices.
As law enforcement continues to investigate the incident, the legal and political implications of this case remain significant, highlighting the complex relationship between national security, immigration policy, and the accessibility of weapons in the United States. The case is expected to be a focal point for discussions on these issues in the coming months.