Hey, there! Log in / Register
The Globe columnist and the gun nuts
By adamg on Fri, 07/20/2007 - 10:11am
Steve Bailey responds.
The Outraged Liberal wonders why the Herald forgot to mention the little matter of Bailey's accuser being a convicted felon.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Because it's not strictly relevant?
Bailey is pissed off, and willing to punch back. Good for him. But it's not strictly relevant to the story that asshat Gottlieb is a convicted felon. Otherwise, why would he have put that whole paragraph in parentheses?
The Herald has a slant, and obviously agrees with Gottlieb. Of course, Gottlieb gets the facts wrong, and ends up making defamatory accusations. The fact of the matter is that Bailey didn't violate any laws, because _he_ didn't buy the gun, and never even had it in his possession. Giving the legal gun buyer money is not illegal. Accusing him of a felony he didn't commit is dishonest. Accusing someone of breaking a law you oppose is hypocritical. (And it looks especially hypocritical coming from someone who _is_ a convicted felon. But that's another story) And accusing someone of breaking a law when it isn't true is defamation.
Bailey should press a charge of defamation per se against Gottlieb.
But it's not strictly
But it's not strictly relevant to the story that asshat Gottlieb is a convicted felon.
Sure it is! He's a convicted felon for lying .
Are we to be spoon fed information and opinion from an authority who's credibility is questionable?
This sure as hell would be brought up if he was in a court room.
It is an aside.
It would be very relevant in a court of law, if one of the points to be proven was Gottlieb's dishonesty. It's also relevant in an article about what a jerk Gottlieb is.
But it is an aside in the article Bailey wrote. That is why the whole paragraph is in parentheses, and ends "But that is another story."
I don't think there's anything wrong with it in the article. Go Bailey! If Gottlieb beats his dog, put that in there too. But there's no reason we should expect the Herald or even a real newspaper to mention that Gottlieb is a convicted felon and a liar in every article that refers to him.
Come on. We all know the Herald has a strong editorial bias. But the comment about Gottlieb's conviction is clearly an aside that is not strictly relevant to a news story. If the Globe ran a news story, rather than an opinion column, about the matter, they likely wouldn't include it either.
You know, if you think of anything you read in the Herald as coming from a credible authority, then you've got a bigger problem than that one article.
Bailey
The fact of the matter is that Bailey didn't violate any laws, because _he_ didn't buy the gun, and never even had it in his possession.
That's incorrect. A straw purchase occurs when someone who is ineligible to purchase a firearm has someone else buy it for them. And a straw purchase is a felony. Bailey clearly provided the funds to purchase the gun and whether or not he took possession, he made it quite clear that he was having the NH resident purchase it because he was denied.
Incorrect.
It is illegal to have someone else purchase a firearm for you if you are ineligible.
But Bailey didn't have his friend purchase a firearm for him. He encouraged his friend to purchase himself a firearm while Bailey was present, and Bailey gave his friend the money to purchase that firearm for himself. Those are not illegal actions.
Bailey never took possession of the firearm. He's not the legal owner, and he's not the illegal owner either. He's no more the owner of that gun than I'm the drinker of a beer I gave you money to buy.
Bailey never had anybody buy a gun for him. Bailey encouraged someone else to buy himself a gun (perfectly legal), gave him the money to do it perfectly legal), and went along to watch (perfectly legal). And then he commented on how easy it would have been for him to break a law at that point. Which he didn't do.
What Bailey did is no more illegal than an underage kid loaning his dad money so the latter can go get a beer. The law doesn't care who gave him the money. The law just cares if the person drinking the beer is legal.
The only reason the cops got involved in this case at all is because some gasbag made defamatory and untrue allegations that Bailey and his friend committed a crime.
BS
What Bailey conveniently left out of his story is what was reported on RKO:
That when the dealer refused to sell to Bailey, he asked if his friend could buy the gun instead. That is the straw purchase. It doesn't matter if he never took possession.
The dealer and Bailey both were in the wrong.
No, it matters.
Let's take the bar example.
A 40-year old man goes to a bar with his 20-year old nephew. The kid asks to try the Corsendonk. The bartender says no. So the kid says can my uncle try the Corsendonk? The bartender, seeing Unk is 40, says yes.
No law is broken if it's the uncle who drinks the beer. He can even give tasting notes. The law is broken only if Unk passes the beer over to his nephew.
The same is true in this case. The dealer followed the law in refusing purchase to Bailey. It was perfectly legal, however, to sell to Bailey's friend, as long as Bailey's friend didn't give the gun to Bailey, which he didn't.
Whether it's legal or not,
What's so great about the idea of a friend giving someone money to buy a firearm in the first place? It may not be illegal, but it's stupid, imo.
Damn
I wish my friends would give me money to buy guns. You wouldn't believe the money I spend on firearms!
It gets expensive after awhile ...
Do you not see the big picture?
"The fact of the matter is that Bailey didn't violate any laws, because _he_ didn't buy the gun, and never even had it in his possession."
OK, but doesn't this blow a king-sized hole through the premise of his original column from 2005, in which he sought to illustrate his perceived need for more gun laws in NH by showing how easy it is for a MA resident to go to NH and buy a gun.
The fact is, he was denied that purchase.
Why?
Because the current laws work.
What he proved was that if a MA resident and a NH resident are both willing to violate state and federal gun laws, then they can engage in the illegal practice of gun smuggling.
Wow. Earth-shattering journalism.
Hmmm.....
The current laws either have to be strengthened or altered so that illegal guns won't be able to get into our state here.
I agree with you
Bailey demonstrated that the NH dealer was following the law; the NH dealer refused to break the law.
Whether the current laws work is really quite a big discussion. The law works in the sense that it prevented Bailey from directly buying a gun in NH. I'm sure it doesn't work in that some people do go through with breaking that law, using straw men, and do get away with it.
Bailey suggested that he could break the law if he wanted to (which I still hold he didn't). But the fact that any of us could go break a law if we wanted to is hardly breaking news. The real question is whether we could _get_away_ with breaking the law.
If I wanted to, I could go park my car in the middle of the sidewalk at Government Center. Woo-woo! Breakin' the Law! But I'd bet it wouldn't be there when I got back. I could break the law, but I couldn't get away with it.
Bailey (sensibly) wasn't willing to truly test the proposition that he'd be able to get away with breaking the law, which would have required actually bringing the gun back to MA under his possession. It now appears likely that he would _not_ have gotten away with breaking the law.
I think the bigger question is why we in Massachusetts think we have the right to dictate law in New Hampshire. I'd say we don't.
What Bailey forgets to mention...
...is that he could have done nearly the EXACT SAME THING (bought 100 guns, though not tax-free, put 'em in the trunk and driven home) in Massachusetts. The only difference being that his buyer would have had to have been a Massachusetts resident who had coughed up the $200 needed ($100 for a pistol class, $100 for a License to Carry) and who lived in any of the gun rights-friendly towns in MA.
There are actually quite a few of those, you know.
Also, bailey himself stated on the air that he committed a straw purchase - a federal felony. Hence, the investigation.
All Bailey was able to demonstrate was that someone willing to violate state and federal gun laws (and able to find someone else willing to do the same) can illegally obtain handguns.
Wow!
Who knew?
Oh, and had the buyer actually purchased 100 handguns that day, the dealer would have been required under current federal law to report that multiple gun purchase to the BATFE.
Oops, I guess he “forgot†to mention that one too.
Damn the NRA. It’s all their fault.
Gottleib's past is irrelevant
He was convicted and given a second chance as allowed by law.
If Bailey committed a crime and is convicted, I see no problem with affording his the same "second chance".
But, attacking Gotteib's past serves but one purpose here. It distracts from the facts of the case and puts the attention on the messenger and not the message. Classic straw man argument.
Actually, I think you mean ad hominem.
Straw man is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument with something more easily knocked down.
Oops
You are correct. My bad.