Another “journalist” breaks gun laws?
Looks like the Philly Inquirer’s reporter committed a straw purchase and violated local ordinances.
She was shocked out how quick and easy it was to buy an AR-15. Maybe, soon, she’ll be shocked at how easy it is to break gun laws?
June 15th, 2016 at 10:13 pm
As someone once said “Rules for the but not for me…”
June 15th, 2016 at 10:15 pm
That should be “Rules for thee but not for me…” Darn spellcheck!
June 16th, 2016 at 6:37 am
Contact the Pennsyvania Attorney General’s office. File a complaint. I’m serious. I know they will look the other way because “Journalism” but it will reveal the hypocrisy of the current self-styled progressive system. Sooner or later, no amount of spin can hide the rot.
June 16th, 2016 at 9:37 am
I’m angry that she so easily broke firearms laws that the rest of us so carefully follow.
June 16th, 2016 at 9:42 pm
Why is she complaining? The system worked. Imagine that, a government system that functioned quickly. Maybe that is what she is truly complaining about, the fact that she didn’t have to have her mandatory 1 hour government line waiting limit.
Now, try that with a felony on your record and see how quickly it processes.
June 17th, 2016 at 6:13 pm
She then, starting at approximately 2:45, declared that she walked out of the store with the rifle “not sure what to do with it cause the assignment was to see if I could do this. Once I did I wasn’t quite sure, as I said in my column, what to do with this gun.”
Then, in relation to questions as to what she did with the gun, she admits “I drove around Philadelphia for a while with it in my car unsure what to do with it,” before she decided to go to the Police Station and turn it in.
She then, at approximately 4:15, goes on to explain that she purchased it using her [corporate] credit card and she’s “going to need to explain it to somebody when they see that on the bill.”
I see no straw purchase.
Her assignment was “see if you can buy a gun”.
She was the ultimate purchaser, since the assignment was not “buy a gun for the company” or “buy a gun for someone else“.
She was the real purchaser, as is shown by “not knowing what to do with it”, in fact – if she was not, she’d have known who the “real purchaser” was and to give it to them.
“Not thinking ahead to actually having the gun because you’re an idiot” is, well, it’s not a straw purchase.
Using a corporate card to pay for it doesn’t mean she was not “the real purchaser”, nor does being assigned the task of “buy a gun” without an addendum of “for some other person or for the company”.
(I’ll give them that she broke PA’s transport law, though.)