From the Barrel of a Gun
Lurking Rhythmically
Random Nuclear Strikes
Daily Pundit
Only Guns and Money
Mostly Cajun
Massad Ayoob
The View From North Central Idaho
Armed and Dangerous
Hell in a Handbasket
View From The Porch
Guns, Cars, and Tech
Legal Insurrection
Irons in the Fire
Volokh Conspiracy
Snowflakes in Hell
Shot in the Dark
Power Line
Michael Bane
The Smallest Minority
Sharp as a Marble
The Silicon Greybeard
3 boxes of BS
Of Arms and the Law
Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives
Speculative Fiction
John Lott
IRS Scandal
Monster Hunter Nation
Right to be Armed

Most Popular

Featured Posts

Subscribe to Atom Feed

Tweets by @TriggerBlog


The loopholes that CNN may wiggle through...

Based on a close reading of this transcript (and kudos to The Smallest Minority for finding it), CNN may have some room to wiggle out of the felony problem.  The catch is, it involves  admitting that they deliberately misled their viewers in the story. 
I should note, for the record, that I don't think this transcript matches the video I saw; it probably matches the broadcast version instead.  The main differences are in the sequence of scenes (the Barrett interview is moved further up), and I think there is also some additional information at the tail end that wasn't in the video I saw. 
Here's the relevant section:
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.
So what I'm hearing from this passage is that Griffin is not, himself, the purchaser.  He's referring to the buyer in the third person.  This is the straw sale angle.  The straw sale is probably not illegal, because no one filled out a 4473.  However, it still looks like a straw sale to me at first glance.  This is mostly based on the video, which features Griffin himself pretending to be the purchaser.  Technically, however, he may not be.  We don't know, because the details aren't in the video.

IF Griffin now owns the rifle, and took it "home" to Atlanta, that would be a violation of GCA'68 (purchasing a rifle outside of your state of residence and transporting it into your state of residence without using an FFL).   On the video, it sure looks like that's what he did.  He picks up the gun case from the baggage claim area, and there's no one else (besides the cameraman) in the visible area.  But that could be staged.  He could be pretending to claim it.  We don't know for sure, because we don't know what's on that luggage tag.  That could be the straw Texan's luggage.

So what information do we need to settle this?
  1. Who is in possession of the rifle presently?
  2. Who actually provided the money to purchase the rifle?
  3. Did the rifle ever leave Texas, and if so, in whose possession?
The way I see it, in order to prove that this was not Griffin buying the rifle for himself (and his story), CNN needs to produce the person who actually bought it.  That person needs to have current possession of the rifle, and to have paid for it himself, without being reimbursed.  And that person needs to have gone along with that rifle any time it left Texas on a passenger airplane.

If they can do that, they are only guilty of misleading the public something awful, because the whole video is set up from the perspective of Griffin being the buyer.  If you aren't listening very carefully, you'll miss the fact that he usually says "we" and the explanatory bit at the end.  Plus, there's this:
(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.
That's where he slips up and says "I".  Everywhere else he says "we", even though there's usually no one but Griffin visible to the camera.

If Griffin/CNN paid for the gun, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't be considered the actual owner.  But that's the argument that CNN will need to make if the BATFE decides to investigate this.

This entry was published 2005-09-24 10:43:35.0 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2005-09-24 10:43:35.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Recent Entries

Most Popular

Featured Entries

Related Categories

If you would like to receive new posts by email:

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice. this site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.