Posted on 07/20/2007 7:40:18 AM PDT by wilco200
/ Joking
Now he's running scared because law abiding gun owners want him prosecuted under the laws he says don't exist, which actually do exist.
A thing of beauty and a joy forever.
Bloomberg should be sitting in Federal prison right next to this clown.
In court I'll argue that I, as a representative of the Globe, hired Mr. Belair to show me how easy it is to buy a firearm for use in my column. His "pay" is to keep the gun.
You are assuming there was an agreement beforehand that Mr. Belair would keep the gun.
I doubt very much that there was - if it was known beforehand that Belair was going to keep the gun, then why not let him pick it out, rather than getting a "junk" gun?
And was the Globe in on this purported agreement to let Belair keep the gun - bought with the Globe's money? Who would the defense find from the Globe to perjure themselves on that point?
I doubt there was a prior agreement, it just doesn't wash. And on cross-examination under oath these guys wouldn't tell the same story, unless there was a serious conspiracy beforehand to fabricate some kind of prior agreement.
As far as I can tell the decision to let Belair keep the gun came after the purchase, and merely as a matter of convenience to the writer.
I doubt very much that there was - if it was known beforehand that Belair was going to keep the gun, then why not let him pick it out, rather than getting a "junk" gun?
Lots of speculation in your post, not bad, but speculation nonetheless. I have been trying to stay with the facts as written, although I did wander a bit myself.
As to the above bit of guesswork, you are accepting the value estimate of a self-confessed hopolphob. All we know is it is a revolver with a reported retail price of $349 that was sold for $240. I recently picked up a sweet little used S&W 637 for $229, it also retails for about $350. Sure, this story may be about a H&R top-break from 1947, but in reality, there is no way to tell if what Belair bought was junk or not.
For example, I also like Kel-Tec pistols. Small lightweight, inexpensive and great for CC. However, some call them 'junk'. The purchased gun may have been a Taurus 85, another gun that fits the price range (factory retail anyway), and also one that some may call junk (although it would not have been half the 'deal'). Very subjective.
Both of these scenario's are the same thing.
Boy, I sure hope you're not a lawyer, if you believe that!
In the situation described, it is. The act of straw purchase is determined not by any one thing. I can legally receive money from anyone and spend it on a firearm. I can legally buy a gun for a friend as a gift, providing I know of no reason he should not own one. A friend can legally buy a gift for me. We can all do the same for family members.
NONE of this is illegal.
However, were I to knowingly buy or transfer a firearm for somebody known to me to be ineligible to own a firearm, or buy one with another's money for the express purpose of turning that gun over to him. Then we have broken the law.
Bailey gave money to Belair, but did not sign papers, nor take possession, nether did Bailey transport a firearm over state line, or attempt to buy one in a state that he was not a resident of.
This was a subject for a column of his 22 months ago. Until now, there has been no question that AS WRITTEN, no laws were broken. But apparently, the fool got on the radio and used a poor turn of phrase and that got somebody's attention (see post #97).
The gun has been confiscated (By the BATFE in NH, from Mr. Belair) they are investigating. The gum flapping we are doing here has been interesting and enjoyable, but it's all to naught because we are not the BATFE.
Let's agree to disagree as we are on the same side. It's very late for me. As I told 2nd amendment mama earlier this afternoon I enjoy the shadenfrude of a Liberal anti-gunner running afoul of the ATF as much as the next guy, but I have this little problem in that I'd like it to be for breaking the law. The wielding of government power swings both ways.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. This guy has us arguing about Gun laws, when we should be talking about what governmental program is causing the Violence.
Why like most liberals do they attack inanimate objects and not the people responsible? Are they forbidden to talk about the fact that there is a connection between violence and the lack of a father in the home? Violence and drug use? Violence and cultural heritage? The correlation between lack of religion and crime rates, crime went up after the religion was taken out of the schools? Higher in high gun control areas and lower in more lax areas. If gun control work, why does Washington DC have a higher murder rate than Iraq? Or that crime is higher in liberal states and cites, and lower in conservative areas. How about mentioning that crime went down in California after they voted in the three strikes law?
Could he write and honest article that was not politically correct but factually truthful?
We will not solve crime or violence problems if we argue about the items used, they are irrelevant. We can only solve these problems if we look at the REAL social problem behind them.
For example of something you would be too afraid to say, or what you editor would allow you to ask would be “Why are illegitimate born Blacks from fatherless homes more likely to kill or commit crimes than, a Christian child from a two parent household? “
When the writer can ask a question like that, then I would say he had courage, and that we had freedom of the press. But he can’t. So all that is left are fluffy pieces, that say nothing and solve nothing.
It possibly depends on what the definition of "for" is.
For example, replace "for" by "to transfer to."
That would clearly be illegal under U.S. gun laws, as a classic straw purchase.
As another example, replace "for" by "on behalf of."
This situation does not seem to be as clear cut.
Clearly, the buyer bought on the instigation of the journalist. The proximate cause of the purchase was the journalist's decision to convince someone else to buy a gun under his direction, and the act of the journalist giving the money to buy the gun with to the buyer.
Subsequently the journalist writes an article describing the transaction. After this, the journalist is presumably paid by the newspaper for the article. The journalist thus derives some tangible benefit the transaction of the gun purchase and its special circumstances.
It may be that the ATF can argue that the real buyer does not have to take actual possession of the gun for a crime to have been committed.
Let's say that instead of costing $250, the gun cost $2,500,000, and the buyer did not have that money to begin with. The buyer gets the money from the journalist, buys the gun, and puts it under his mattress. Then a third party, a terrorist, breaks and enters into the buyer's home, finds the gun, removes it, and commits a mass murder terrorist act with the gun.
Before claiming this scenario is absurd, consider the arguments of common criminals who may have set up straw purchases in which the final transmission of the gun is never completed. Their defense would be the same as the possible defense of the journalist's ("I never took possession of the gun, I never intended to take possession of the gun, and therefore no crime was committed when I gave the money to the buyer.")
Consider also that this is the ATF that is the enforcing agency, and that it is seemingly commonplace for the ATF to stretch legal interpretations of the law to absurd limits and beyond for the purposes of gaining a conviction (or raids, or whatever).
Think "Roger & Me" (as in "Michael Moore").
I should point out to everyone that is keen to correct me that I was only explaining when the poster put [sic] in the title - that is, they were thinking in terms of The King & I.
Possibly not. But that is not what happened here. Not only did the journalist directly benefit from the purchase of the gun (he submitted the article describing the full circumstances of the purchase through alleged deliberate lying to the newspaper, and the newspaper presumably paid him for the article), but also the newspaper printed the article on the alleged "conspiracy," thus providing an alleged example of how easy it would be to "circumvent" the law.
Part of the reason for laws is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
But another reason for laws (and their enforcement) is to provide examples for ordinary citizens including prospective criminals of examples of what happens when a law is broken-- that is, swift and certain justice-- for purposes of preventing crimes from occuring through fear of being caught and punished by authorities.
One can argue that the second purpose is more important than the first, because not all laws are perfectly enforceable, and therefore the best and most effective prevention of crime is through prophylaxis (with apologies to Freudians :-).
Aha, you may be right. My first presumption was that the poster was thinking in terms of "Roger & Me," since the popular movie with the somewhat similar title is properly referred to as "The King and I," not "The King & I."
:-)
OK. I get a refill on my monthly script of 120 Vicodins.
I sell them to my buddy for $249. He turns around and sells them for $5 each.
Therefore, Vicodins should be banned.
The logic of liberals.
“If the author paid someone to buy illegal drugs on his behalf, but never touched them physically himself, would he be in the clear?”
I don’t mean to beat this dead horse, but yes he would be in the clear as no prosecutor in their right mind would take this to court.
“Explosives?”
Yes again.
“Gave money as a “gift” to a mercenary who was going to assasinate a foreign ruler?”
If you can prove he gave the money as part of a conspiracy to commit murder, he would be prosecuted.
“Or how about stocks? Consider the corporate executive who is forbidden from buying stock prior to a news announcement, but he gives money to an out of state friend who then purchases said stock in such quantity as to influence the stock price in that vulnerable period where no news is being released. The exec never takes possession of the stock. It’s not his. Did he benefit from that purchase made on his behalf with his money?”
Quilty. However, insider trading laws are very different than those for gun purchases.
“Well, the author of the article benefited from his straw man purchase. He was able to be paid for his article on the matter. Likewise, the purchase was made on his behalf with his money.”
Sorry, for it to have been a Straw man purchase requires that the gun be given to the illegal party. That never happened. For instance, I tell you that I will buy you a gun if you give me money. You give me money, I buy it in my name and never give you the gun. What happened was I screwed you out of some money, but its not a gun crime unless I give the gun to you.
As another example, say that you give me some money to get you precription painkillers for your addiction. You give me $50 to get you the pills using a legal prescription in my name. I buy the pills with your money and never give them to you. Both you and I would I be in the clear because a crime never took place.
The key issue here is not so much whether or not he broke the law, but that he tried to make the ATFE look stupid. And it’s never wise to make omnipotent armed bureaucrats with huge budgets and lots of free time look stupid.
So, let’s have a look at 18 USC 922 - it’s unlawful:
(a)(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;
Consider - do you suppose that the dealer would have put the sale through if Bailey and Belair had been completely and fully forthright, walked up to the counter, and Belair had said “This guy lives in Massachusetts, and he just gave me $250, so I’m going to buy this gun here so that he can write about it in the Boston Globe?”
I think that would set off any reputable dealer’s “ATF sting” alarms.
Remember, we’re talking about an agency that classified a shoelace as a machine gun.
The problem is the writer apparently continued to claim on the radio and in his columns that he was the purchaser of the firearm and he contracted someone to buy that firearm. Now it doesn’t matter who still has or had possession of the firearm. It could very well be the reporter hadn’t picked the firearm up from the illegal buyer.
Will the BATF pursue the case. I doubt it. They will chalk it up to another liberal committing a crime showing how easy it is to commit a crime.
The reporter claims that the purchase was made with his (company’s) money on his behalf via a person in another state who he drove across state lines to observe making said purchase.
Possession doesn’t matter at that point. It’s a straw purchase.
I have considered it. I figure that is apparent in many of my posts here. We are a stubborn bunch here in this thread. But if I get the gist of your posting it's this: The ATF will do what the AFT will do, and G*d help those in the way.
It took 22 months for them to notice or to believe there was possibly a crime committed. I suspect that another 22 months to 'clear it up' is not out of the question.
Yah—but if I read the story correctly, the purchaser, who HAS a license in NH., kept the gun.
So there was no “straw purchase.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.