I was watching "CNN live today" this morning and they did a segment on the .50 bmg. The "reporter" went to GunsAmerica and found a non-FFL to sell him a rifle, then flew out to TX to buy it cash&carry. They finished up the segment showing how the rifle can shoot through an airplane escape hatch and a steel plate.
CNN jumps on the 50-ban bandwagon
- Thread starter perdurabo
- Start date
Sir William
New member
Yes, I saw that. The only memorable part was in the interview with Mr. Barret. The reporter asked if he felt there should be regulations on his rifles. The reply? "I feel there should be regulations of criminals." I liked that.
You know, with all the talk about people getting jobs and more jobs are needed it amazes me that the liberals, bleeding hearts, and gun banners wish to put entire companies (and their employees) out of work.
I think that if any bans, especially at federal level, go through then Mr. Barret and any other .50 manufacturer should just refuse to sell to the states and to the feds.
I think that if any bans, especially at federal level, go through then Mr. Barret and any other .50 manufacturer should just refuse to sell to the states and to the feds.
sleeping dog
New member
Is that a legal purchase that the reporter made? He flew to Texas and bought it from someone?
I thought that if I purchase a rifle outside my home state, the purchase has to go through an FFL (in either state).
If I fly to texas, buy a rifle from someone without using an FFL, and bring it back home, I think that's illegal.
Anyone know the legality of it?
I thought that if I purchase a rifle outside my home state, the purchase has to go through an FFL (in either state).
If I fly to texas, buy a rifle from someone without using an FFL, and bring it back home, I think that's illegal.
Anyone know the legality of it?
Sleeping dog, I thought it was illegal. I called the owner of a shop in Houston to ask about it, and he said it was legal. I called the owner of a shop here in WI, and he said it was illegal.
Here's a link to US Code, Title 18. Maybe somebody else can make sense of it. It's been a long time since this was an issue for me. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
Here's a link to US Code, Title 18. Maybe somebody else can make sense of it. It's been a long time since this was an issue for me. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
To help.
Long guns can be purchased in another state even if you are not a resident of that state. A handgun, on the other hand, must be sent to a FFL of your resident state and then the NICS is checked again, the form is filled out (for the second time), and you pay for the fees.
Unless the law has recently changed, buying a long arm is still legal to buy without it being shipped (I believe it falls under the same law which states that you can mail via the post office a long gun but not a handgun).
IIRC, this was set up so that anyone going to another state could purchase and use the long gun for "sporting purposes" such as hunting.
So, if it was not illegal via state regulations or statues then yes, it was legal for the "reporter" to do so. It was a private sell between people that live in a country where private sales of legal products used to be the norm.
Long guns can be purchased in another state even if you are not a resident of that state. A handgun, on the other hand, must be sent to a FFL of your resident state and then the NICS is checked again, the form is filled out (for the second time), and you pay for the fees.
Unless the law has recently changed, buying a long arm is still legal to buy without it being shipped (I believe it falls under the same law which states that you can mail via the post office a long gun but not a handgun).
IIRC, this was set up so that anyone going to another state could purchase and use the long gun for "sporting purposes" such as hunting.
So, if it was not illegal via state regulations or statues then yes, it was legal for the "reporter" to do so. It was a private sell between people that live in a country where private sales of legal products used to be the norm.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Absolutely right. It is illegal to buy a gun in one state with the intention of carrying it to another state, and I believe an additional violation to actually carry it to another state. Both this reporter and the CEO of the news organization should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (if true), and face hard jail time.
So what have they proven? That if you perform an act that is already illegal, some harm could possibly follow - didn't we already know that?
Edited: Oops, or I dunno, perhaps I should defer to USP - his understanding is directly contrary to mine - anyone know for sure?
Okay, by the book that ATF sent to me:
(that funny symbol like two dollor signs intermergered) 178.29: Out of state acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees;
paragraph b: Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at the licensess's premises obtained in comformity with the provisions of (funny sign again) 178.96(c).
Wayne
*dang that was hard to type, didn't sound or feel right
. Oh, page 50 of the ATF regulations book that they send out with FFL's.
(that funny symbol like two dollor signs intermergered) 178.29: Out of state acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees;
paragraph b: Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at the licensess's premises obtained in comformity with the provisions of (funny sign again) 178.96(c).
Wayne
*dang that was hard to type, didn't sound or feel right
. Oh, page 50 of the ATF regulations book that they send out with FFL's.
Last edited:
I remember quite a while ago arguing elsewhere that if Mrs. Brady had broken the law when she bought the rifle for her son, she should not be prosecuted. But I think I've reformed (or simply gotten meaner). I hope all such idiots are prosecuted, including this journalist. I hope he gets fired. I hope he can't find work anywhere else.
At the same time, I hope RKBA supporters are NOT prosecuted for those same crimes. I realize that's unfair, but I believe that unfairness is better than the injustice of prosecuting everyone without discrimination. RKBA antagonists have a karmic debt, and one way to pay that off is by being prosecuted. Of course, I hope the idiotic laws and their enforcers in the BATFE, FBI, DOJ and Customs all disappear, which would nicely render the whole issue irrelevant. Until that day, though, when RKBA antagonists sow the wind, they should reap the whirlwind. (with credit to Arthur "Bomber" Harris, RAF, for that wonderful metaphor which he used it to describe the Nazis' bombing campaign)
No harm will follow from the purchase itself. That's the reason most of us believe that what the reporter did should be legal. The harm that occurred was caused by the reporter's mouth and his being an employee of a news organization. And TV... TV is definitely at fault. We need to ban reporters speaking or writing to the public, news organizations, and TVs.
sleeping dog
New member
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.
tyme, when Sarah Brady bought a rifle for her son, that was legal, and still is legal. You are allowed to purchase a gun which is intended as a gift. A gift is not a straw purchase. Some states may be more restrictive, but she broke no federal rule. It would only be illegal if she knew that her son was not allowed to have a gun, if he was convicted of a felony, for example. Sarah may not be real popular on this board, but she's only guilty of irony.
Regards.
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.
tyme, when Sarah Brady bought a rifle for her son, that was legal, and still is legal. You are allowed to purchase a gun which is intended as a gift. A gift is not a straw purchase. Some states may be more restrictive, but she broke no federal rule. It would only be illegal if she knew that her son was not allowed to have a gun, if he was convicted of a felony, for example. Sarah may not be real popular on this board, but she's only guilty of irony.
Regards.
Tyme,
I think that I and sleeping dog got it right on this one. I am right on the buying of a rifle or shotgun in other states that you are not resident in and he (sleeping dog) is right about it not being against the law to buy a gun, any gun, as a gift.
As much as I don't like sarah brady and as much as I don't like so called "reporters", neither broke the law.
I think that I and sleeping dog got it right on this one. I am right on the buying of a rifle or shotgun in other states that you are not resident in and he (sleeping dog) is right about it not being against the law to buy a gun, any gun, as a gift.
As much as I don't like sarah brady and as much as I don't like so called "reporters", neither broke the law.
