We shopped till we dropped. Someone beat us to the used grenade launcher (price: $190), but it took Belair, a New Hampshire resident and licensed gun owner, less than 20 minutes to complete the purchase of a trashy little .38-caliber revolver, perfect for a night out in Dorchester. The gun, which retails for $349, was bargain-priced at $240, which I had given to Belair. (And, of course, expensed to the Globe.)
Belair could have bought 100 guns in tax-free, no-limit New Hampshire that day, and I could have put them in my trunk and driven (illegally) home. That was exactly the point I was making. That is not what I did. Belair took the gun with him; I'm afraid of guns.
He didn't actually break the law. He just expensed 250 bucks to his company to cover the cost of the $$$ he gave to someone else for buying a handgun.
And the writer that expensed the 250.00.
He didn't buy the gun he merely paid for the gun.
There's something happin'n here.
What it is ain't exactly clear....
Conspiracy to circumvent the law? He may have given it away, but while he had possession of it he was still a Massachusetts resident with a Hew Hamphire conspirator who could, at any time, change his mind and refuse the gun.
In such a case the Mass. guy would have found himself an exile until such time as he committed the same act against which he rails: individual sale of a personal weapon.
Now, can a Massachusetts resident’s sale of a personal weapon be fit under Massachusetts’ law?
So, he made the point that he could break the law? Big deal. He says he did not actually break the law. Why? Because he did not want to go to jail. So, his point is I could have broken the law, but I did not, so we have to make more laws so it would be harder for me not to break the law??? This guy is blinded by his admitted hoplophobia. He needs psychiatric help.
Second, “bargain-priced at $240, which I had given to Belair” and (And, of course, expensed to the Globe.)
Bailey and Belair both committed a crime. Belair knew of the plan for the straw purchase, was given the money by Bailey and therefore Culpable. Since the Boston Globe reimbursed Bailey as an expense, and I would think they wanted a receipt, they are also Culpable.
So the gun was in the possession of Belair, who is to say where it was from the time these criminals left the gun show and the ATF showed up at Belair's door. Maybe it was rented to a Boston resident.
Well, then, why the column?
He's got nothing to worry about.
sounds like ATF’s favourite charge.. “conspiracy to commit federal firearms laws violations.”
Not really - the original purchase was for Bailey. That was a straw purchase, plain and simple - and illegal as hell.
When *after-the-fact* he decided not to keep the gun, that did not change the original purchase. He did NOT drive up to New Hampshire in order to buy his friend a gun. He went up to New Hampshire to make a straw purchase - which he did. Otherwise there would be no story. Pudding = proof.
Dicking around with gun laws like this is just plain stupid - and he is guilty as hell. No point complaining to the publisher - that Stalinist Marty Baron or whatever, will defend the guy to his last breath.
Incorrect. What you describe above is an illegal straw purchase (money from one person, "purchase" via another).
To jail he should go.
If you read the Federal form that you sign when you purchase a firearm, it is indeed illegal to purchase one for someone.
The columnist plainly states he gave money to somebody to buy a gun he himself could not legally purchase. This guy deserves the rack.
During that July 10 radio segment, Bailey explained that he visited the gun show with an unidentified New Hampshire man. He was also with John Rosenthal, head of Stop Handgun Violence in Massachusetts. They wanted to prove how "easy" it would be to purchase a handgun at a gun show. Here's what Bailey told his hosts on the air: "We finally settled on a .38 Special. To be fair we took a new Hampshire resident with us who was a guard, a prison guard. It would have been much harder; you would have had a waiting time if you were a Massachusetts resident... "But he (the New Hampshire man) bought it for me. I gave him a couple of hundred bucks. We expensed it to the Globe by the way. One of the first things I learned when I came to the Globe was I never saw a receipt I couldn't expense."Bailey wrote a column about his trip to the gun show in the Globe's Nov. 30, 2005 edition, but only recently did he disclose important details of the transaction during a live on-air discussion with WRKO radio hosts Tom Finneran and Todd Feinburg. The Globe is owned by the anti-gun New York Times.
He admitted on air that the gun was purchased for him - conspiracy to commit a felony!
But he conspired to do so, and took positive actions to further the conspiracy, that is giving the money to the other guy.