Month: February 2005

Well CRAP. Just as I Thought.

CNN obfuscated. The transcript (and I assume the original CNN piece) was kind of vague, giving the strong implication that CNN reporter Drew Griffin was the purchaser of the rifle, and is a non-resident of Texas. According to this post at The Firing Line forums, CNN is apparently off the hook:

I just saw a replay of the article on CNN. When the seller and buyer walked out of the house with the gun, it was not the reporter that bought the gun. The reporter wasn’t in the picture. The reporter handled a rifle case on an airport luggage conveyer, but apparently didn’t actually go anywhere with the 50 cal. The reporter at the end of the story made it clear that the gun was bought in Texas by a resident of Texas (which was not the reporter).

So, nothing illegal was done, but the story as presented was a lie, implying that the reporter flew home with the rifle. In fact, the rifle stayed in Texas, and the purchaser was not the reporter. From the Michael Moore school of journalism.

That’s what it sounds like. Read the transcript excerpt.

CNN lie? I’m shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.

I don’t even expect a retraction, now. We can call off the hounds.

UPDATE 2/24: Matt at Stop the Bleating has done some research and concluded (rightly, IMHO) that there won’t be any prosecution because the violation was not “willing,” and gives legal precedent to back his conclusion up.

Under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(D), it appears that a violation of 922(a)(3) is not punishable unless it is “willful.” In Bryan v. United States, the Supreme Court construed the term “willful” in section 924(a)(1)(D) to require that the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful at the time of the prohibited act, although not that he knew what specific law he was breaking.

There have been a number of BATF prosecutions that, it would appear to me, have been of people who were not “willfully” breaking the law, but they were probably not breaking 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(D).

Matt apparently agrees with me, though, that reporter Drew Griffin is a “a deceitful sack of s***”, but he gets to walk, either way.

In a related post, Denise of The Ten Ring has a post on the difficulties of navigating the minefield that is federal, state, county, and municipal firearms law. Give it a look.

Intent? We Don’t Need No Steenking Intent!

Back to the CNN felony story:

The Countertop Chronicles points out that INTENT has had very little influence on prior prosecutions by the BATF.

The simple fact is that CNN didn’t commit a common law crime, where mens rea is an element of guilt. No, instead they violated a statute that provides for strict liability, ir-regardless of intent.

Quoting 2^nd Amendment lawyer Dave Kopel’s Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control, Countertop points to several firearms cases where a lack of “intent” was explicitly acknowledged – but prosecution, conviction, and sentencing went ahead anyway. I’d like to point out, too, the case of New Jersey v. Pelleteri. The New Jersey Supreme Court went so far in that case as to state:

This is an area in which “regulations abound and inquiries are likely,” and where the overarching purpose is to insure the public safety and protect against acts and threats of violence. State v. Hatch, 64 N.J. 179, 184, 313 A.2d 797 (1973); see also Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 248 A.2d 521 (1968). “[T]he dangers are so high and the regulations so prevalent that, on balance, the legislative branch may as a matter of sound public policy and without impairing any constitutional guarantees, declare the act itself unlawful without any further requirement of mens rea or its equivalent.” State v. Hatch, 64 N.J. at 184-85, 313 A.2d 797. When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.

Too bad this sale didn’t occur in New Jersey. Mr. Griffin would find himself most probably under the jail.

For those of you who’ve been under a rock since Saturday, Triggerfinger has a pretty comprehensive list of links to the story so far.

SCOTUSblog reports on today’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. For some background, the Kelo case is about the abuse of eminent domain law, where the government takes property from individual citizens. I’ve covered several cases of eminent domain abuse, but this one’s a doozy. CNN’s Money site has a good background story on the case.

Wilhelmina Dery, 87, was born in her century-old house near the Thames River.

Her son, Matt, and daughter-in-law, Suzanne, live next door with their teenage son, Andrew. Among their most precious possessions: the garden planted by Matt’s grandmother, and the kitchen doorway where they’ve charted Andrew’s height over the years.

The Derys’ neighbors have their own, similar stories.

Bill Von Winkle bought his first building in the neighborhood 20 years ago, and went to work making sandwiches in the downstairs deli and renovating the upstairs apartments.

Susette Kelo meticulously restored her small pink Victorian house.

So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.

Their property, they said, is not for sale.

In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.

According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney’s representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.

Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city’s infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It’s for the benefit of the entire community, he said.

(Emphasis mine.) Read the whole thing.

At issue is the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But in this case, it isn’t being taken “for public use.” It’s being taken from one private party, and it’s being given (or sold) to another private party on the grounds that “boosting tax revenue” constitutes “public use.” No it doesn’t. It constitutes enriching the government coffers.

As you can imagine, I consider this to be an extreme abuse of the Constitution. In the parlance of “slippery slopes,” eminent domain was first abused back in the 50’s when “urban renewal” was big. The case of Berman v. Parker was the first suit. It challenged the The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. The Supreme Court found:

The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants’ building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions – even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes.

(a) The power of Congress over the District of Columbia includes all the legislative powers which a state may exercise over its affairs.

(b) Subject to specific constitutional limitations, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation enacted in the exercise of the police power; and this principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved.

(c) This Court does not sit to determine whether or not a particular housing project is desirable.

(d) If Congress decides that the Nation’s Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.

(e) Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear.

(f) Once the public purpose has been established, the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine.

(g) This Court cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of a community redevelopment project; and it is not beyond the power of Congress to utilize an agency of private enterprise for this purpose or to authorize the taking of private property and its resale or lease to the same or other private parties as part of such a project.

(h) It is not beyond the power of Congress or its authorized agencies to attack the problem of the blighted parts of the community on an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis. Redevelopment of an entire area under a balanced integrated plan so as to include not only new homes but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers is plainly relevant to the maintenance of the desired housing standards and therefore within congressional power.

(i) The standards contained in the Act are sufficiently definite to sustain the delegation of authority to administrative agencies to execute the plan to eliminate not only slums but also the blighted areas that tend to produce slums.

(j) Once the public purpose is established, the amount and character of the land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislature.

(k) If the Redevelopment Agency considers it necessary in carrying out a redevelopment project to take full title to the land, as distinguished from the objectionable buildings located thereon, it may do so.

(l) The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive the just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking.

Note the repeated reference to “slums” and “blighted areas.” The justification for the land-grab was “urban renewal” – the elimination of slums and “blighted areas” which was a public good, but not necessarily public use. And this decision justified selling property taken under eminent domain to other private parties.

Yet the Fifth Amendment is pretty explicit in its call for “public use.”

This decision was followed by Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, in which the State of Hawaii used eminent domain to take large lots of land from their private owners, then break up those lots and sell the pieces to the tenants living on them. But because the original owner got “just compensation,” this theft was made legal.

First step down the slippery slope: “Urban renewal of blighted areas and slums” as justification.

Second step down the slippery slope: “Fair redistribution” as justification.

Third step down the slippery slope: “Boosting tax revenue” as justification.

SCOTUSblog reports:

Marty (Lederman) reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today’s property rights cases overwhelmingly.

In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O’Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O’Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn’t presented in Kelo, but the Court’s opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.

In Lingle, it appears that the government will win unanimously. As Justice Scalia put it at argument, the Court may have to “eat crow” and abandon the suggestion it has made in several cases that there is a “substantially advances” test for what constitutes a taking.

(Lingle refers to Lingle, Linda (Hawaii Gov.), et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., which is being heard simultaneously.)

Professor Bainbridge comments on the case, quoting The Economist:

Put simply, cities cannot take someone’s house just because they think they can make better use of it. Otherwise, argues Scott Bullock, Mrs Kelo’s lawyer, you end up destroying private property rights altogether. For if the sole yardstick is economic benefit, any house can be replaced at any time by a business or shop (because they usually produce more tax revenues). Moreover, if city governments can seize private property by claiming a public benefit which they themselves determine, where do they stop? If they decide it is in the public interest to encourage locally-owned shops, what would prevent them compulsorily closing megastores, or vice versa? This is central planning.

That’s exactly right. You and I can see that, but through the miracle (snort!) of stare decisis, SCOTUS appears to have backed itself into a corner where it cannot admit that fact, even if it wanted to – and my guess is that at least four if not more justices wouldn’t want to anyway. They like central planning.

Re-read that excerpt from the Berman decision; “If Congress decides that the Nation’s Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.” If that’s not an endorsement of central planning, I don’t know what it is.

Francis Porretto wrote last year in his piece No Law Abridging that when the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Finance Reform Act:

(T)hen two days ago, the Supreme Court declared itself to be a lawless organ in service to a totalitarian State. The five Justices who voted to uphold the clearly unConstitutional McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act placed their notions of “compelling government interest” and “the good of society” above the Supreme Law Of The Land, which for two centuries it has been the Court’s sworn duty to safeguard.

Let that thought sink in for a moment. Five Justices of the Supreme Court have abrogated the very contract from which their authority and responsibilities derive. There’s no room for hedging here. They didn’t just interpret an ambiguity in the Constitution in a way that, though novel, could be squared with the public meanings of words and the traditions of Constitutional law. They dropped the document in the mud and pissed on it.

Well, they’ve gone about it more slowly with this select portion of the 5^th Amendment, but they’re about to unzip and let fly again, from all indications. I quoted Justice Scalia last year in This is NOT What I Wanted to Read:

It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution

—

We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.

He was not waxing enthusiastic about the idea.

Francis also said this:

A man is not free because he’s permitted to vote for his political masters. The subjects of the late, unlamented Soviet Union enjoyed that “right.” So did the subjects of Saddam Hussein.

A man is not free because some portion of his earnings is still his to spend on a variety of attractive goods. Not if the government can punish him for choosing goods it has not approved.

A man is not free because the long arm of the law has not yet descended on his neck. That’s more properly called a stay of execution.

A man is free if, and only if, he has the unchallenged right to do as he damned well pleases with his life, his property, and with any other responsible, consenting adult, provided only that he respects the equal freedom of all other men.

Yup. And it’s pretty damned obvious that a man’s right to do as he damned well pleases with his property no longer exists, either.

Back when I wrote The Courts Will Not Save Us series I quoted Rev. Donald Sensing from the same week as Francis Porretto’s piece:

I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.

I’m not blaming Bush. This is the result of literally decades of bad decisions, that because of stare decisis the Courts simply will not correct as we go slouching towards despotism.

That Alexander Tytler quote is sounding more and more prophetic every day.

UPDATE 2/23: Eric at Classical Values posts on the topic too. Apparently he missed SCOTUSblog’s report.

ALSO: Say Uncle has a raft of links, and has been covering eminent domain abuse for quite some time.

Even More on the CNN .50 BMG Rifle Story

Triggerfinger reports that Michael Bane contacted the National Shooting Sports Foundation in regards to the CNN story on .50 caliber rifles and reports:

FLASH! CNN Violated Federal Firearms Law!

Based on my conversations with legal experts within the firearms industry, CNN did indeed violate at least one, and probably two, federal firearms laws in their reporting of the .50 caliber controversy last week.

Representatives of the industry are currently in touch with the ATF.

This is becoming more and more interesting as time goes on.

Triggerfinger has a pretty comprehensive page of links on the story, too.

UPDATE: Triggerfinger gets Instalanched!

Further update: Michael Bane expands on his previous post. Upshot:

By now, the upper echelons of the ATF have been made aware of the CNN violations. My contacts told me there was very little chance the agency would move against CNN because of “intent” — there was no intent to violate the law.

That might work with murder and manslaughter, but my reading of the gun law doesn’t leave a lot of room for “intent” — of course, I’m not an attorney!

“Intent” doesn’t seem to be of much importance when law enforcement is raiding people like William Bechard. But I can’t say I’m surprised. The question now is whether the blogosphere can bring enough heat on CNN to get it to make another “non-retraction” retraction.

CNN Story Update

SayUncle reports that the BATFE is aware of CNN’s violation of the law:

Thanks to a reader, I have copies of emails from an ATF agent who was forwarded the CNN transcript. The email from the ATF agent says:

I have forwarded this to the Houston office. There is no straw purchase since the transaction does not involve a licensed dealer. However the owner did sell a firearm to a non-resident of Texas which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5).

Keep up the cards & letters, folks! “Perfectly legal” my aching ass.

UPDATE: Posse Incitatus comments.

(I’m not a mysoginist. I’m a realist. And an engineer.)

(I’m glad my wife doesn’t read my blog.)

UPDATE: Reader DocB informs me that the two middle pieces are part of Don McMillan’s stand-up routine. I watched his promotional video. He’s pretty damned funny! Especially for an engineer!

Here’s Some Good News!

(Also via KeepandBearArms.com)

I posted on the story back in November about Australian Chris Packer’s arrest in Indonesia for “illegal possession of firearms” when Indonesian police, acting on a tip, stopped and searched his boat and found several firearms aboard – firearms that he’d previously used against pirates.

Yes, pirates. They still exist, and they prey on boats like Packer’s.

Well, the good news is, he’s been released (registration required – use BugMeNot):

Australian yachtsman released

Australian champion yachtsman Christopher Packer was released yesterday from prison in Bali after three months in custody for firearms offences.

A delighted Mr Packer said he would be celebrating on his boat.

Beaming and dressed in shorts and a white polo shirt, Mr Packer was accompanied by his girlfriend Gianna Maria Botto and two defence lawyers as he left Denpasar’s notorious Kerobokan prison.

He got into a black four-wheel drive and headed for his converted freighter Lissa, which has been impounded at Bali’s Benoa harbour since his arrest last November.

Arriving at the harbour, Mr Packer relaxed with a can of VB beer and a glass of Australian white wine with his lawyer Mohammad Rifan, but said nothing about his immediate plans.

Beer and wine?

Philistine!

He said he would have to stay on board his 55-metre vessel for the time being, as his Indonesian visa had run out and he was unable to celebrate his release on shore.

“It’s almost free. It suits me fine,” he said

Denpasar District Court on Friday handed the millionaire Sydney to Hobart and Admirals Cup sailor a three-month sentence for failing to declare a stash of firearms.

With time served, he was due for release later today.

Judges also ordered the return of Lissa and his weapons, which Mr Packer said he kept to fend off pirate attacks.

The court decided Mr Packer, 52, of Peppermint Grove in Perth, had not been a gun runner – an offence carrying the death penalty.

Mr Packer was on a round-the-world cruise when he was stopped by Indonesian marine police last November as he attempted to leave Indonesian waters.

Police impounded Lissa to inspect it for drugs and firearms after receiving a tip-off from an informer, believed to be a disgruntled former crewman employed by Mr Packer.

They found around 2700 rounds of ammunition and six New Zealand-registered firearms, including a Ruger semi-automatic rifle, two pump-action shotguns, a revolver and automatic pistol, and an antique rifle.

Mr Packer said he could not say when he would leave Bali.

“The boat is ready. As soon as the crew all arrive and the paperwork is all done and the guns are returned, any time,” he said.

Asked if there was anything he would miss about his former prison home, he said only the regular tennis matches with the inmates.

He thanked his family for their support.

Tennis matches at the “notorious Kerobokan prison”? Hasn’t lost his sense of humor, obviously. And I’m glad he’s getting his guns back. That’s a lucky man. Being rich didn’t hurt either, I’m sure.

You Can’t Do That! You’re Not Qualified!

(Via KeepandBearArms.com)

It seems that some Oklahomans understand the concept of Sir Robert Peel’s Seventh Principle of Modern Policing:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

But some members of the police have forgotten the Third Principle:

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

Here’s the whole story as reported by ChannelOklahoma.com (see the “fair use” declaration at the bottom of this webpage, if you’re interested.)

911 Call Reveals Woman’s Struggle With Purse Thief
Woman Held Suspect At Gunpoint Until Police Arrived

POSTED: 1:52 pm CST February 17, 2005
UPDATED: 5:22 pm CST February 17, 2005

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma City police released a 911 recording Thursday that reveals a dramatic struggle following an attempted purse-snatching in south Oklahoma City.

Barbara Gesell, 83, had just pulled into her garage when a man ran inside her garage and grabbed her purse, which has hanging across her shoulder. A suspect, Robert Campbell, was arrested shortly afterward on suspicion of attempted robbery.

Police said the story might have ended differently if Gesell’s daughter, Theresa Gesell, had not taken action.

According to police, Theresa Gesell ran behind Campbell and tried to catch him when he ran from the scene. While she was chasing the suspect, she called 911.

“A man has attacked us in our house, and we are fighting him in the yard,” Theresa Gesell said to the 911 dispatcher.

As the struggle moved down the street, a neighbor — whom Theresa Gesell identified as “Hershall” — stopped to help. Theresa then grabbed her .45-caliber pistol and continued running after Campbell — despite the dispatcher’s plea for her to drop the handgun.

“I am going to go get my .45 … you all are too slow,” she said.

This is where the agent of the State tells the peon, “You can’t do that, you’re not qualified!” Ms. Gesell’s response is a classic!

As the call continues, the dispatcher asks Theresa to get rid of the weapon. However, after the suspect tried to escape along a creek bed, Theresa and Hershall used the pistol to make sure he didn’t leave.

“You can go put that gun up now,” the dispatcher said.

“Please – you might injure yourself because you’re not an authorized agent of the State! Besides, your actions illustrate that YOU are responsible for your own protection, and we can’t have that!”

“No sir,” Theresa replied. “We have the gun pointed at him … he must have been a city fellow because he didn’t know anything about the woods.”

Seconds later, police arrived and arrested Campbell. With Hershall’s help, the Gesells retrieved Barbara’s purse.

Campbell is currently housed in the Oklahoma County Jail. He is expected to be charged with assault and attempted robbery.

And Ms. Gesell, who didn’t have to shoot anybody, won’t be charged either. A .45 eh? No wussy 9mm Europellet for THAT Oklahoman!

They have a transcript up. Here’s the pertinent parts as I see it:

(CNN correspondent Drew) GRIFFIN: To buy a gun, even a .50-caliber gun, this huge gun, you just need to go to your computer and click on one of the biggest classified gun sites, which, in our case, is GunsAmerica.com, AK-47s, shotguns, pistols, all kinds of rifles.

But we wanted to buy was the biggest caliber rifle you could possibly buy. And that’s this category right here, big .50-caliber rifles. This is the gun that is now banned in California. And on this Web site, we have about three dozen of them for sale. But what we’re looking for is one that is not being sold by a dealer.

See, where it says federal licensed firearm dealer? We are trying to find one that’s being sold by just a private citizen. This is actually the gun we bought. When you finally find the gun you want on this Web site and you’re dealing with a private party, you just give him your e-mail and you send him a note. “Let’s set up a meeting. I’m paying cash.” And the next thing you know, we’re going to buy our gun.

(voice-over): But before I shelled out $2,500 to buy this gun, I wanted to make sure I could buy ammunition. That turned out to be as easy as ordering flowers. With just a couple of clicks on my computer, I ordered and paid by credit card for 50 .50-caliber armor- piercing rounds.

They were delivered in a week, shells as long as my hand delivered, no questions asked, by UPS. I could have even bought tracer rounds, if I had wanted. Now it was time to get the gun.

(on camera): What we’re about to do is perfectly legal in dozens of states where cash-and-carry is the rule, a private seller, a private buyer. There will be no background check, no government waiting period, no government paperwork at all. In fact, the only paper that will change hands is the money we use to buy our .50- caliber rifle.

(voice-over): The transaction at a house in suburban Houston took about 20 minutes. We walked out with a case holding the gun critics say is the perfect terrorist weapon, a brand new .50-caliber with scope, bipod and directions. We flew home.

Guns are checked as baggage. And when the bags arrived for our flight, I simply picked it up and left.

—

(Paula) ZAHN: But it was remarkable to watch you do this transaction in about a 20-minute period. Now, we should make it clear you went to a private seller.

GRIFFIN: That’s right.

ZAHN: To purchase this gun. Why?

GRIFFIN: On the Internet, you learn all the new nuances and all the loopholes of buying a gun. If I bought that through a licensed dealer, I’d have to clear a background check. I would have to show proof of age, proof of residency. By going through a private seller, private seller, private buyer, it’s strictly a cash transaction. We made sure that the two, the buyer and the seller, were in the same state. And after that, cash and carry.

ZAHN: Isn’t that astonishing to you?

GRIFFIN: It was to me. I’m not a gun person. I’ve never bought a gun before in my life. And to see how easy this was to do and how easy it was, even easier, to get these armor-piercing bullets, it was incredible.

It certainly sound to me like a straw-purchaser bought a .50 for Griffin, using CNN’s money, and then Griffin took possession and transported that weapon by air back to Atlanta. That’s two felonies, as I see it.

It would appear, then, that Griffin didn’t “learn all the nuances” of buying a gun legally.

One more time, where’s the BATF?

UPDATE: After reading around, it appears that I am mistaken. Only ONE felony. Having a local buy for you from a dealer constitutes a “straw purchase.” Having a local buy for you from an individual does not, since there is no Form 4473 involved.

However, transporting the weapon interstate is a felony if it was not transferred through a licensed dealer using a Form 4473. So only ONE felony, apparently.

Isn’t the law wonderful?

Another thought: Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone more web-savvy than I am could figure out who the seller was and interview him about the details of the sale? (Though I wouldn’t want the guy to incriminate himself, it sounds as though he was an innocent party doing a perfectly legal sale.)

CNN had a piece in October 1999 when House Democrats (who else?) tried to pass legislation restricting access to .50 BMG rifles. Entitled Is the .50-caliber rifle a gun for soldiers or civilians? (my answer is “yes,”) it details the range and destructive power of the gun and its ammunition, with all the requisite buzzwords. Excerpts:

The .50-caliber rifle can be purchased at many American gun stores, with fewer restrictions than handguns.

Considering that they’re huge and heavy, so what?

Also available — armor-piercing incendiary .50-caliber ammunition — millions of rounds that the Pentagon paid an ammunition manufacturer to take off its hands. More than 100,000 rounds have made their way to the civilian market where, according to a General Accounting Office investigation, they are incredibly easy to obtain.

None of which have been used in a crime.

Now, here’s my favorite part. There’s a link to click to for “Facts about the .50 Caliber Rifle.” Here they are, in order:

50-CALIBER RIFLE IS DEADLY ACCURATE AT A RANGE OF 1600 YARDS – EQUIVALENT OF 16 FOOTBALL FIELDS. IT CAN FIRE WITH SOME EFFECTIVENESS AT TARGETS THREE TO FOUR MILES AWAY.

Assuming the guy behind the trigger is extremely skilled. Shooting at something 1,000 yards away is a lot tougher than it sounds. The rifle and its ammunition are important, but the skill of the shooter is the essential part.

IN THE GULF WAR THE .50-CALIBER RIFLE WAS USED TO DESTROY IRAQI ARMORED VEHICLES AND ARTILLERY.

Disable. Not “destroy.” Bombs “destroy.” Missiles “destroy.” A 1/2″ hole in an engine block “disables.”

THE .50-CALIBER RIFLE WEIGHS 28 OR MORE POUNDS.

Or less. Some of the single-shot versions aren’t quite that heavy, but suffice it to say, you won’t be toting it under a trench coat to rob the local Quickee-Mart.

THE .50-CALIBER RIFLE COSTS $2,500 AND UP.

Some less, used. Though if the effort to ban them continues, we’re going to see those prices climb again.

LOADED WITH ARMOR-PIERCING AMMUNITION, THE .50-CALIBER RIFLE FIRES EASILY FROM 100 YARDS THROUGH THREE-INCH THICK BULLET-RESISTANT GLASS. IT CAN PIERCE A THREE-AND-A-HALF INCH MANHOLE COVER AND A 600-POUND SAFE. IT ALSO CAN PENETRATE THE ONE-INCH PLATING USED ON ARMORED VEHICLES.

You know, I wondered where Teddy Kennedy got his info when he stood before the Senate and said, “Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.” It’s obvious! He watches CNN! I find it fascinating that the people most fearful of the ability of the .50 to penetrate armored vehicles are our elected officials. Who ride around in armored vehicles.

2000 PEOPLE ARE MEMBERS OF THE .50-CALIBER SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION. THEY SHOOT THIS WEAPON AT LONG DISTANCE TARGETS FOR SPORT.

See? Just 2,000 people. We can violate their rights. Nobody will care. They’re just gun-nuts anyway.

UNDER FEDERAL LAW, YOU CAN BUY A .50-CALIBER RIFLE AT A GUN STORE AS LONG AS YOU ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE AND PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK. A FEW STATES HAVE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS.

And have $2,500 and can carry 28 lbs plus ammo.

THIS MUST BE STOPPED!

A USED .50-CALIBER RIFLE CAN OFTEN BE PURCHASED WITH NO BACKGROUND CHECK AT ALL.

But if you’re going to do it, you should try to do it IN YOUR STATE OF RESIDENCE, else you’re committing a felony.