Skip to comments.CBS intentionally violated posted gun show rules in phony undercover stunt
Posted on 05/05/2012 1:06:31 PM PDT by marktwain
Bullet Button Used To Get Around California Gun Laws, CBS 5 San Francisco reported Tuesday.
CBS 5 went undercover to a recent gun show at the Cow Palace in Daly City and found California legal assault rifles throughout, they claim.
Its a non-story, really, as their undercover team found nothing illegalthey werent even looking for thator that couldnt have been obtained openly. The entire purpose of the investigation appears to be to gin up public frenzy about a legal device that allows for changing magazines on semi-automatic firearms that comply with Californias specific model and cosmetic features bans.
I've emailed the gun show proprietors and asked them if they post signs prohibiting unauthorized photographs and recording of patrons and dealers, this columnist noted on The War on Guns blog. I also note the covert video includes audio, and California appears to be a two-party consent state, which raises the question of whether or not our intrepid undercover reporters were the only lawbreakers in the room--funny, though, how they choose not to do covert ops against the population causing all the gun problems.
That is, no doubt, because criminal populations actually are breaking laws, and theyre dangerous people to be around, which indicates theres a real story to be had, as opposed to a manufactured one exploiting peaceable people minding their own business. Had CBS 5 wished to discuss bullet buttons or any other fallout from Californias ridiculous and ineffective anti-gun edicts, there would have been no shortage of resources ready and willing to meet them face-to-face and provide their audience with informed guidance. The entire undercover rationale was unjustified from the beginning, designed to create the illusion that viewers were being provided a straight news exposé by hard-boiled reporters, instead of by mob-inciting Authorized Journalist hacks with plenty of
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I wonder what would happen if some Conservative news organization had one of its reporters register to vote multiple times using phoney ID, and then cast multiple ballots at multiple polling places, recording each of these actions on video, and then posted the whole thing on the internet?
You all know the answer I’m sure.
That’d (probably) be a felony, IIMN. There was the recent undercover camera guy who registered in DC as Eric Holder and filmed it.
See-BS. Enemy of a free people.
The “no pictures” signs and announcements are toothless. They can eject you from the show and shake a finger at you, which is nothing to CBS.
If there were a fine that could be collected, that would be a different story. Then the show takes the evidence CBS conveniently publicized and collects the fine.
Audio recording is illegal, yes- but is are the show promoters going to tackle CBS and file a criminal complaint? It’s more likely that an individual at the show who sees himself on TV will do that.
No, he identified himself as Eric Holder to the person working at the polls, & said he didn’t have ID. The poll person didn’t have a problem with that & handed him the ballot, but the fake Holder said he’d be more comfortable showing ID, handed the ballot back & left (filming everything, of course).
Did you mean the International Institute of Minnesota?
Nope. Gotta disagree. I saw the video. He was very careful NOT to do that. He asked the poll worker "Do you have an Eric Holder?".
The poll worker made an assumption and proceeded to treat the guy as if he were named Eric Holder. You are correct on the ID. The poll worker said, "We don't need that."
Yes; my bad fingers.
In addition to asking an open ended question only - “Do you have an Eric Holder”?, the investigator did not actually take the ballot from the poll worker. That is key in not being prosecuted I think.
Actually, he never identified himself as being Holder. He asked if Eric Holder was on the list. The poll worker then handed him Holder's ballot which he handed back.
Many cameras give off a unique electronic signature when they are used, so it might be possible to easily design a sensor to detect camera use. But that raises another point: if someone breaks the rules, what recourse do you have against them?
As far as the audio goes, the police can be called, but those individuals using cameras could only be asked to leave, without a refund of their admission, if any.
He was offered that ballot and made an excuse to leave so as not to take possession of it.
The point being, he or anyone else could have voted someone else’s ballot.
Note to self...read all posts before replying.
That's not exactly accurate, he ASKED the poll worker "Do you have an Eric Holder registered at this precinct?".
The poll worker checked the roll, answered "yes, sign here" and offered him Holder's ballot. He did not sign or accept the ballot, he stated he would go home and find his identification.
It was entirely legal and very carefully done to stay that way.
I am reminded of the chapter of Unintended Consequences when Henry Bowman saw the setup for what it was, and drew his pistol on the guy:
“I’ve never seen anyn for sale, and wouldn’t know what they looked like if I did.” He stared at the young man. “Haven’t seen any shoelaces, super glue, or paper clips for sale here.”
You’re right, NP. He didn’t take that step, nor did he vote fraudulently. He was careful to stay out of those illegal areas. Thanks for the correction.
I corrected myself on Post #17:
He was given the ballot nevertheless.