Saturday, June 18, 2016

The Rats are in the Cornfield

Store Owner: Undercover CBS Purchase of AR-15 Broke Federal Law

ATF, Virginia State Police contacted over ‘straw purchase’

It sure is hard for a working journalist to keep up with the fast moving targets of pushing the narrative-du-jour.  With facts as rare as hens teeth over in the MSM, someone thought it would be a great idea to legally purchase an eeee-veyl assault rifle with the express purpose of legally transferring it to a third party.  The idea would be to conduct an "undercover" sting investigation to prove that the exception of legal private transfers disproves the rule that the NCIS system works.  Well, works well enough for the purposes of this story anyway.

"The store, SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia, said that when CBS News’ Paula Reid [legally] purchased the rifle she told the store’s general manager the gun was for her own use. However, when CBS reported on the story they revealed the gun was purchased for the story and transferred to a third party a few hours later. “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it,” the report said."

"The store said they contacted the ATF after viewing the report because they feared the misdirection used by the CBS reporter constituted a straw purchase, which would be a federal crime."

As any sane person involved with the most regulated industry in the country, the store owner smelled a rat and called in the boys in blue. 

Again from the article: “Ms. Paula Reid came into the shop with cash, claiming she wished to purchase an AR-15 to, ‘undergo training,’” Ryan Lamke, SpecDive’s general manager, told the Washington Free Beacon. “She refused basic, free instruction of firearms safety under the pretense that she was using the firearm for training with a NRA certified instructor.”

Now, we all know that absolutely nothing will happen to Ms. Reid.  She is, after all, a vetted member of the fourth estate that was in the field and caught pushing the narrative.  But the story should be a cautionary tale of keeping your b.s. antennae on full alert in everything you do.  Especially when it comes to dealing with things that can put you in prison.

If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat and talks like a rat, you should probably believe that it is a rat.  These hacks are generally out of their element and are fairly easy to pick out.  Professionals are a bit different in that they study the culture and can talk the talk.  Invariably they will come to you with the deal of a lifetime.  You do so at the peril of your livelihood, family, friends.. Both types, the rank armatures and the hardened professionals, will always come at you sideways.  It is the only way they know.


idahobob said...

Yup. If a deal seems too good to be true, it probably IS too good to be true.


channelcatA1 said...

Here is yet another reporter making an illegal straw purchase.

Anonymous said...

Agree that what she did was illegal....disagree that it should be. There shouldn't be a background check to exercise a right to bear arms and if we didn't let violent offenders out of jail early....we likely wouldn't need them in the first place. After all, if a convicted felon can't be trusted with a gun, then why is he on the streets again in the first place?

Further, this is just as much about property rights and a free market(things the establishment is very much against).....If I *truly* OWN something, then I can sell it as I see fit.....that includes firearms I may have bought a few hours prior.

Dutchman6 said...


Funny how many people get caught up in that. Another byproduct if the War on Drugs is the use of catching little fish with stupid stuff like items left off of a military property book to reel in other little fish. Remember what they did to a fella and his whole clan up in your state a while back?


I seem to remember a scary "high capacity" magazine that was flashed around on live TV in a city where posession of such a device is a felony. Of course, nothing ever came of that either. A commenter on Knuckledragging brought up the point of being able to use selective non-enforcement of the law as a legal defense. Interesting point.


"After all, if a convicted felon can't be trusted with a gun, then why is he on the streets again in the first place?"

Excellent point. I had not considered that side of the argument.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Yes, the question on the 4473 is specific to the buyer of the firearm. If she lied it is a Federal Offence no matter how it was transferred, legally or otherwise.

The fact remains that she committed perjury and in doing so violated the Federal Laws regarding the purchase of the rifle.

Any other argument would give them an ability to wave off the charge.

MattB said...

So if I buy a gun , go shoot it and decide I don't like it-- How long do I have to wait before I sell it?

Chris W. said...

"After all, if a convicted felon can't be trusted with a gun, then why is he on the streets again in the first place?"

I agree with this sentiment. What year did the law change that disallowed convicted felons from owning a firearm? If I remember my history correctly, there was a time when a felon was released from prison and handed back his six-shooter and gear when he left the prison. Was this only in the "old west" where one had to have protection from the "savages" or did this take place country-wide?

I guess if the ex-con then used said firearm in another crime, he had the possibility of being killed by a good guy with a gun as much as a guy without a conviction attempting the same crime. If you committed multiple felonies with your firearm, you were probably going to spend a bit of a stretch in the clink anyhow. With all the laws on the books and all the felonies for minor infractions, I think this law is a bit outdated. Why does a guy who commits felony-level tax fraud need to have his gun rights (as well as all the others) removed? I'm in no fear of such and individual, but we have taken his right to defend his home and family from an armed invader.

Anonymous said...

The only problem with them waiving the charge is that the wouldn't waive it for any non-connected person. There exists within our nation 2 separate systems of for the politically well-connected and officers of the court and one for the rest of the plebeians. Otherwise....buying property to own or resell is a free market as one can get.

billf said...

Mattb,and others as it applies....the question on the form asks if the firearm that you are purchasing is for yourself.If you answer yes,and that is the truth,it doesn't matter at all if you subsequently sell it.
But in this particular story,the reporter only bought it for the express purpose of reselling it and writing about that.She lied on a federal form,which should not only be a felony,but should disqualify her from ever legally buying a gun again,but also the revocation (?) of some other rights.
She did what the libs are saying no one should be able to do!!
Why was she not arrested and charged?If I did the same thing,the ATF would be at my door.

Anonymous said...

So essentially support rule of law. That's a good thing. However, you also support 4473 forms and the GCA of '68....a bad thing. Hopefully you change your tune realizing that any gun control violates the "shall not be infringed" clause.