CNN Rifle Felony Update 2
Kevin reports that there was no felony. He says CNN just misled their viewers by lying and implying they took the rifle to Georgia when it remained in Texas. The transcript states:
(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.
The transport of the firearm from Texas to Georgia would be illegal and that’s what they said they did. I think that felony was committed based on the transcript. I haven’t seen the video (anyone with a link send it).
Kevin says to call off the dogs. I don’t think so. The transport is illegal and I don’t see how the reporter would note that he checked the gun at the airport when he didn’t, unless he’s a liar. I don’t find it plausible that he checked an empty case at the airport but it is possible.
Update: Conversely (and a bit of good news), Kevin’s source notes that CNN went out of its way to state that the buyer was a Texas resident, which would put him in the clear in terms of obeying the law.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:55 am
The buyer would only be in the clear if he bought the gun for himself with his own funds. If CNN gave him the cash and he bought it for the reporter (who then took it back to Georgia) wouldn’t he be a straw purchaser and/or part of the conspiracy??
February 24th, 2005 at 1:03 am
Counterop, legally, there is no “straw purchaser” in a private sale.
But, if the intermediary transferred the gun to Griffin (the CNN reporter) subsequent to his buying it from the original Texas seller, then doesn’t he then become the guilty seller (in the eyes of GCA’68) himself?
February 24th, 2005 at 1:13 am
Oh, gotta add that Kevin’s conclusion is based on a point made by a TFL commenter who zeroed in on one portion of the transcript. The rest of the transcript still stands as incriminating in my book.
February 24th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
I guess it all hinges on who the “we” is in “we flew home.” If he actually meant “Mr. Straw and I flew to my home state,” that’s fine. If he actually meant “Mr. Straw gave/sold/lent me his gun and I flew home with other people from CNN,” it’s not. A loan from Mr. Straw to Mr. Griffin would be acceptable, but Griffin taking the borrowed gun to his home state would not be.
February 24th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
I concur but still want to know.
February 25th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Did you know that this entry (#4920) shares a Permalink with another (#4917)? That’s why I have WP set up to include unique post ID as part of the URI.
February 25th, 2005 at 3:08 am
Yeah, i just realized it’d do that. Kinda neat because you can have separate posts as updates on the same date that will show up. HOwever, i didn’t do it on purpose this time so i may change it.