STEINBERG: Would-be terrorists can buy guns, but a reporter? No.

A reporter in Philadelphia bought an assault rifle in seven minutes; 40 percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have no background checks. Here, I had paperwork. A federal form asking, was I an illegal alien? No. Was I a fugitive? Again no. Had I ever been convicted on charges of domestic abuse? No. Handed over my credit card: $842.50. Another $40 for the instructor to acquaint me with the gun the next day.
....
A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”

STEINBERG: Would-be terrorists can buy guns, but a reporter? No.

So, a rough break down of the article here:

A reporter decides to write an article on how easy it is to buy an AR-15 in Illinois (yeah, nothing gun related is easy in Illinois.) He proceeds to lie on a Form 4473 and get DENIED a firearms purchase due to a past history of alcoholism and domestic violence.

The reporter then goes on to assert that:

Well, didn’t see that coming. Were that same standard applied to the American public, there would be a whole lot fewer guns sold...

Because he Isn't a member of the American public, apparently.

Then he insists:

Now I’ll state what I believe the real reason is: Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark. Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that’s a different story. Gun makers avoid publicity because the truth is this: they sell tools of death to frightened people and make a fortune doing so. They shun attention because they know, if we saw clearly what is happening in our country, we’d demand change.

I just don't know how much more delusional this fellow can be.

a reply to: TheBulk

Well it sure takes a lot of mental gymnastics to get mad at the system for working in the exact way you think it should.

I think it's a perception problem. Some people think you can just walk into a store and put a gun in your shopping cart, pay, and walk out. They don't realize there is an actual background check done on the buyer before the firearm is turned over. They don't realize the only time you can buy a gun without a check is a private party in-state transaction, or if they do realize that, disguise it as the "gun show loophole".

Bottom line, definitions are important people. If we can't agree on that then we might as well be speaking gibberish.

Well since it didn't fit his narrative can anybody really say they are surprised? He is lucky there is no penalty for lying on a federal form like that. Purchasing a gun is not what people think. Especially that whole "black-market" nonsense. People like to think that there is a store that you can just go buy illegal thing when it is more like some person decides that he can make $$ by selling things that he/she can sell that are illegal and more often than not it's out of their home or a friends home.

a reply to: hangedman13

Form 4473

Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison

So is he being charged or is it going to be swept under the rug?

a reply to: hangedman13

There definitely IS a penalty for lying on a Form 4473. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison. Someone has to want to press those charges, though.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: hangedman13

Form 4473

Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison

So is he being charged or is it going to be swept under the rug?

This post should have four hundred stars and that reporter should be arrested.

a reply to: butcherguy

I agree on both points lol.

I don't want this guy to get the book thrown at him for doing something he thought was right, but I do want him to at least have to answer for his crimes like every other peon in this country is forced to do.

reply to: Excallibacca
truth is, this guy is a self admitted spousal abuser and alcolic, he has written several articals localy, and talked about his addiction. the people who owned the gun store took this into account, and decided that they diddn't want to sell a firearm to a person with these problems.

a reply to: botay

Well, federal law says anyone with a domestic violence conviction can't buy a gun.

Im confused....did a reporter admit to lying on a federal form in an article?

If so, that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Its little surprise that this mental giant lied to cover up his history of domestic abuse.

What an asshole.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: botay

Well, federal law says anyone with a domestic violence conviction can't buy a gun.

What if it's non domestic.?

a reply to: Excallibacca

Welcome to the real world, cupcake. I guess it wasn't as easy as he thought. Too bad he can't admit that he was wrong and that the background check system worked exactly as it should have in his case.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

It applies to *any* conviction of a crime where you could have been sentenced to at least one year in prison, even if you actually received a shorter sentence, including probation. Its one of the questions specifically asked on form 4473 when you purchase a firearm.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

there was no conviction, he, as a reporter chose to write about himself and his struggles with substance abuse and the consiquences.

a reply to: botay

So, since he was charged but never even tried for domestic abuse, an absolute failing of the law, he still sees fit to advocate for more restrictions on guns. Tell me, what's the point of a law when a man who has confessed to beating his wife can't even been convicted?

I still say that if we actually enforce current law equally, without having to be PC or worry about offending someone, things would be better.