Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Parker is off and rolling! | Main | Looks like they solved the bee die-offs »

Straw man buy by Boston Globe

Posted by David Hardy · 19 July 2007 09:38 AM

The Boston Herald picks up the story. A Boston Globe reporter set up a straw man sale in New Hampshire so he could write a story about it, and the Globe paid for the buy.

Say Uncle notes there's even more to the story -- a leader of the antigunners was involved in the illegal buy, too. Apart from the felonies committed (sale to nonresident, false paperwork), it's interesting that the Globe is comfortable with its reporters working hand-in-hand with such leadership.

· media

11 Comments | Leave a comment

Thirdpower | July 19, 2007 10:00 AM | Reply

So if there's no "criminal intent" they won't charge you? They say he didn't keep the gun. What did he do w/ it? Did he sell it through an FFL dealer or is it stored somewhere in the Globe's office building?

SayUncle | July 19, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply

Notice what's missing? hint:

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/07/19/whats_missing_from_this_story/

Greg Morris | July 19, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply

Attacking leftie reporters is fun, but that isn't the important thing to take away from this. This is proof that instead of new gun laws, the existing ones need to be enforced more vigorously.

sailorcurt | July 19, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply

We need a new law that makes it illegal to break the law. That would put a stop to this nonsense...since everyone obviously obeys the law and all that...

Doug in Colorado | July 19, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply

One law for thee, but not for me...so sayeth the reporter...

Bill | July 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Reply

"I don’t see a criminal intent there. I just see someone facilitating a news story,"

B.S.

So if I'm doing a story on how easy it is to steal a car, and I sneak into a car lot at night, break into the car, break the steering lock and drive it away, no felony? Oh, I'll bring it back the next day.

Then we can do a story about speeding and we'll drive at 90 mph on the highway. When we get pulled over, we can just tell the officer we're preparing a news story about speeding.

Slippery slope argument - allowing journalists to violate the law in the name of "facilitating a news story"??

jacflash | July 19, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply

Speaking as a Massachusetts gun owner, I think a New Hampshire jail would be an excellent place for John Rosenthal to spend the next several years.

buzz | July 19, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply

But there was intent to violate the law. Hence the news story. That's what made it a news story. That the reporter was able to break the law in obtaining a firearm. And what possible difference could it make that the reporter gave back the firearm? We have do-overs now?

"Shooting Blind" | July 19, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply

Ignorance may account for [CBS reporter David] Martin's incomplete reporting on these issues. But he went beyond ignorance when he claimed that it took him less than two hours to find a gunsmith willing to convert a "semi-automatic assault weapon" into a machine guna job that supposedly took just nine min utes. Viewers saw only about 15 seconds of the alleged conversion, not enough for even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to determine if it had actually been carried out, though the BATF did send a letter of reprimand to CBS. In a letter to a complaining viewer, CBS claimed that the conversion had been completed but that the gun had then been immediately converted back to semi -automatic. If the gun was not fired, how did Martin know that it had in fact been converted into a machine gun? Since Martin was shown firing an automatic rifle immediately after the brief conversion footage, viewers were led to believe that they were seeing the results of the conversionunless they knew enough to recognize that the allegedly converted gun was not an M-16 like the one that was fired.

So we have only CBS's claim as evidence that a conversion was carried out at all, let alone in nine minutes. If it was carried out, CBS violated federal law and received no more than a written reprimand for doing so. If it was not carried out, CBS lied to its viewers.

thirdpower | July 20, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply

And here's Bailey's response:

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07/20/the_atf__me/

Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply

The Boston Globe gave money to Walter Belair, a New Hampshire resident, to buy a gun.

Belair retained possession of the gun in NH. The police found it in Belair's home in NH.

What's the crime?

Leave a comment