Philadelphia Daily News Columnist Helen Ubinas Seemingly Violates State and Federal Law in Straw Purchase of Firearm

UPDATED 6/17/2016 – see below

Today, Philadelphia Inquirer Daily News columnist Helen Ubinas admitted to seemingly violating state and federal firearms laws in relation to her purchase of a rifle for purposes of an article detailing the process to lawfully purchase a firearm.

Initially, Columnist Ubinas chronicled her purchase of an Ar-15 rifle from a Philadelphia Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) in her article – I bought an Ar-15 semi-automatic rifle in Philly in 7 minutes. Thereafter, she did a live video stream on Facebook, where she provided further detail on her purchase of the rifle, including her admissions to seemingly violating state and federal firearms laws, and answered viewers questions. (To ensure that her admissions are preserved for the District Attorney’s investigation, I have downloaded a copy of the live stream).

In her article, while making comments that the process was “obscene” and “horrifying” because she, as a non-prohibited person, was not denied or delayed in exercising her Constitutional Right and calling for MORE laws in relation to the purchase of firearms, she acknowledges that she “felt a little squeamish about not telling him who I was and what I was trying to do.” Well, maybe, just maybe, she was feeling squeamish because she was violating the law, but we’ll get to that in a few. She also declares that “[a]s I walked to my car with my brand-new gun, I wasn’t sure what to do with it.”

During the live feed, Columnist Ubinas admits at approximately the 1 minute mark that she has never purchased a firearm and that “this is all new to me.”She also acknowledges to going through a 1 page and a half of questions “very quick” around the 2 minute, 10 second mark. Maybe she should have taken her time to review the questions and the accompanying instructions…but I digress. 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.”

Apparently, due to her failure to review the questions (and instructions) on the ATF 4473 Form that she filled out, as well as, failing to investigate the legality of her “assignment”, she made a straw purchase and then seemingly violated Pennsylvania’s transportation laws.

Not even two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Abramski v. U.S. held that where even a non-prohibited person paid for a firearm on behalf of another non-prohibited person, such constituted a straw purchase, which is illegal under federal law. In relation to Columnist Ubinas, she admits that she was on “assignment” and used her company’s credit card for the Ar-15; yet, she is the one that purchased it. Even if she were to allege that she purchased it on behalf of the company, which can be lawful in certain contexts, she admitted to telling the FFL that she was purchasing it for herself and therefore failed to comply with 27 C.F.R. 478.124(g), which again results in the purchase being a straw purchase. Furthermore, Pennsylvania law also prohibits straw purchasers pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6111.

But, that isn’t her only seeming violation of law. She also admits to seemingly violating Pennsylvania’s transportation law – 18 Pa.C.S. 6106. Section 6106(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “Except as provided in paragraph 2, any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle …without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.” Paragraph 2 then provides that the grading for the offense shall be a misdemeanor of the first degree,  if the individual was otherwise eligible for a license to carry firearms. Of course, 6106(b) provides exceptions to the law but none of the exceptions including for “media purposes” and only permit transport between, inter alia,  one’s home and range or business. As there is no exception for driving “around Philadelphia for a while with it in my car unsure what to do with it” and since the process was new to her, it does not sound as if she has a license to carry firearms and therefore would be in violation of the law. There are also those pesky pictures in the article of her holding the Ar-15 and of the Ar-15 in an open box with the manuals displayed that suggest that she drove around for a photo-op…

While vociferously stating that we must enact more laws to prevent individuals from violating the existing laws (such as those prohibiting murder), it appears that Columnist Ubinas’ has violated the law herself, in her haste to complete her assignment. As I am sure that she does not believe that she should be treated specially and that violators of the law must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I am sure she will turn herself in and plead guilty to these offenses. Otherwise, her position would be quite hypocritical.

UPDATE: It appears that other journalists are now being investigated for similar conduct. CBS News Reporter Paula Reid is being investigated for stating that she was purchasing an Ar-15 for herself, when in fact, it was for a third-party. See the article here.

Advertisements

151 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

151 responses to “Philadelphia Daily News Columnist Helen Ubinas Seemingly Violates State and Federal Law in Straw Purchase of Firearm

  1. thematrixq

    Reblogged this on ?verything!.

    Like

    • The definition of a firearm in Pennsylvania: Any
      pistol or revolver with a barrel length of less than 15 inches, any rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches, any shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, or any of the above with an overall length of less than 26 inches. And It’s not a firearm unless it’s loaded. You cannot have a rifle or shotgun loaded in a vehicle.

      Like

      • While that is generally correct, it is not correct for this section of the Uniform Firearms Act.

        Like

      • George Losoncy

        I own a Taurus, Judge revolver 2 inch barrel that fires .410 shot shells. and is legal in Pa. As long as you have a license to carry a firearm you may carry it in a vehicle while loaded.

        Like

  2. Fed Up

    You’re a moron.

    Liked by 2 people

    • He is a moron. He’s completely wrong n both points he tried to make, thus rendering him so incompetent that he should be disbarred or making him such a liar that he should be disbarred.

      Liked by 1 person

      • JW Styche

        Really? What she did is at minimum a straw man purchase. You cannot buy a firearm for someone else using their money (in this case credit card) stating on the
        ATF 4473 that she was buying it for herself. You might want to note that on the opposite side of the country in San Bernardino there is a person in a heap of trouble because that person did this very thing, except he bought the guns for a terrorist and his wife.

        Like

      • Sorry JW. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The argument is not that she made a straw purchase. It’s that she lied on the form. Moreover, she did not lie on the form. Corporate credit cards are the obligation of the user, not of the corporation. You appear to know as much about the law on this (read: nothing) as does the OP. Go practice pretend law elsewhere.

        Liked by 1 person

      • TYPE O NEGATIVE

        Really, An adult wearing a superman pajama top is someone I’m going to listen to?

        Like

  3. kenneth frederick

    maybe in Philly,but transporting a long gun in Pa. doesn’t reguire a license to carry.

    Like

    • You need to look to how firearm is defined in 6106 and how it has been applied in the Philadelphia courts, as it does not utilize the general definition of firearm found in 6102.

      Like

      • kenneth frederick

        thank you,I will look into Pa.6106,but as I said,it’s philadelphia,they make law as it fits their agenda. I called philly airport security as I had to drop off a friend for a flight and asked about CCW. Was told it’s legal(except in the boarding area)but my handgun would most likely be confiscated and it might take a yr or longer to get it returned. I just remained in my vechicle,dropped off my friend at the curb and left philly quickly. Sheeple and sycophants in philly and pittsburg need to get their collective heads out of their asses and remove these pols from office.

        Like

      • You need to read the statute you cite, which has a specific exemption for transport from the place of purchase.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You need to read the statute, Michael Kasdin, as the exemption clearly states “except in his place of abode or fixed place of business”, which Mr. Prince was kind enough to explain in his article, which you either did not read or could not process the meaning of.

        Like

      • Wrong again. Exception 8. You can have it in your vehicle while transporting from place of purchase. Another pretend lawyer failing at pretend law. Well done.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Helen

        You missed the point of her experiment. She bought the gun and carried it out of the store in no time at all, simply by showing her drivers license. That’s insane. It’s harder for an 18 year old to purchase alcohol. There is something wrong with that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Brian

        How would you like this to be harder? She filled out a form showed her license and went though a background check. I’m not sure where you buy cigarettes but you should probably not go there if you do a background check.

        Like

  4. I believe she should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and this should be covered fully by Brietbart – makes for good news you know? One less felon off the street.

    Like

  5. Dcow777

    She’ll never be prosecuted. That Sunday talk show host waived an “Illegal” (In Washington DC) thirty round magazine on TV and the prosecutor never did a thing.
    She’s part of a “privileged class” and won’t get arrested, let alone prosecuted for this offense. She’s helping the “gun violence” narrative along and that’s the same as a full immunity from prosecution given to someone testifying to a grand jury.
    The realization that IF they stop everyone on the “terrorist watch list” from buying guns (Which in 5 years would be millions of people long I’m sure) they can walk down to the nearest Rent-a-Truck place, buy the biggest truck their credit card will approve the deposit on and jump in.
    Then they can drive it somewhere, load it with as much weight of junk they can find and drive it anywhere there are a lot of pedestrians and smear as many as possible till the cops come, it runs out of targets or the vehicle becomes disabled or runs out of fuel. When the inevitable arrest comes they can just grab a large kitchen knife bought at any store without any paperwork or background checks and run screaming at the cops after threatening to kill them and become a “martyr” by law enforcement.
    Then they’ll still try to blame it on something OTHER than the person’s actual cause, unless they can portray them as a politically incorrect killer. Then it WILL be that ideology’s fault, not the non-PC one.
    All else fails they’ll call it “Road Rage” and stop covering it as soon as possible.

    Like

  6. Fresh

    For someone so quick to judge a SEPTA cop who was falsely accused, falsely charged and falsely convicted by ignoring facts and evidence, Ubiñas needs a taste of “justice”. She’s about as aware of reality as a deer on a highway and she was just promoted! What does that say about our news media these days? Hey Helen, maybe your buddy Tom Nestel can pull some of his corrupt strings for ya???

    Like

  7. Matt

    She demonstrates how quickly she can get an assault rifle in PA, and you harangue about what she did wrong? You really showed her. And weren’t you the studious one, preserving the video like it’s your mission to screw her for revealing a serious problem. How about a little focus here? What about all the other people who do what she did? What about the ones who aren’t trying to bring important attention to a life-threatening problem? What about the ones who get assault weapons too easily then kill a club full of people having a night out. Thanks, Joshua, for keeping us focused on the bigger picture. We would have missed this were it not for you. Let’s go after the messenger. Perhaps you should get back to the law practice you built on guns. No, you’re not biased at all.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jesus

      Sorry for your mental deficiency, Matt.

      Like

      • Think For a Second

        This is an incredibly misguided comment, and whoever moderates this section should remove it. When you portray such childish behavior, like resorting to insults rather than refuting Matt’s points, is someone going to be more or less inclined to believe you are responsible enough to handle a firearm? If you can’t negotiate a simple online comment without acting like you’re six, why would any feel comfortable putting a gun in your hand? You make us look bad.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Matt

        You can tell I have a mental deficiency by my weak command of the English language, or because your Trump-like insults make you feel almost as manly as a gun? I’m thinking the latter, but what do I know, given my mental deficiency? Boy oh boy you’s gun peoples sure iz smart. Hey, what’s that? Nothing, just republicans and even Trump considering gun controls. I guess Helen Ubinas was on to something. Thank God for her.

        Liked by 1 person

    • sense

      no the articel just points out how a

      Like

    • “She demonstrates how quickly she can get an assault rifle in PA, and you harangue about what she did wrong?” You mean “what she did illegally.” You’re missing the point of this piece, which is to point out how she was breaking existing laws while clamoring for more laws to make things more difficult for law-abiding folks. All too often, folks who argue for more restrictions on something they oppose have no clue about what restrictions already exist.

      “What about all the other people who do what she did?” Well, they aren’t out writing articles about it, are they? Do you expect Prince to write about other folks you’re merely conjecturing as behaving the same way? Why would it be his responsibility to write about those supposed others, much less do something about them?

      “What about the ones who get assault weapons too easily then kill a club full of people having a night out(?)” What “ones”? What other incidents are you alluding to?

      Like

      • Matt

        I only need to allude to one incident. Orlando. Walked right into that one.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think the big takeaway from this is yes she broke the law but even in breaking the law she was still able to purchase the gun in a very short amount of time. The fact that she can “legally purchase” a firearm while at the same time breaking firearms laws clearly shows there’s some pretty severe flaws in the system. If she faces no repercussions for her well documented breaking of these laws that also will show flaws in the system. I would also like to say the straw argument is somewhat weak because the corporate charge card is the responsibility of the individual using it so it could be argued that she was indeed buying it for herself even if she was to be reimbursed for it since the entire basis of her investigation was to see how quickly she, as an individual could buy the gun I’d say it was indeed a personal purchase.

        Like

      • “I only need to allude to one incident. Orlando. Walked right into that one.”

        Except that he passed every background check, and none of the proposed laws would have stopped him.

        Does it sting? Put some ice on it, you’ll be fine.

        Like

      • ajxn

        Like to make lots of bad strawman arguments, doesn’t you. But yes, I do see you need a lot of practice to be any good with it.

        Stop doing it and start acting like a grown up…

        Like

    • Matt, educate yourself before pontificating. She did not buy an “Assault Rifle” at all. YOU CANNOT (absent a Class III Federal Firearms License) legally purchase, possess or sell an actual assault rifle in the United States and have not been able to do so since 1934. She bought a perfectly legal semi-automatic sporting rifle which happens to be black and scary looking to ignorant people.

      An assault rifle is one designed to operate on full automatic — that means when you hold the trigger back it keeps firing until the ammo runs out. Each time you want an AR 15 to discharge one round, you must pull the trigger. To anyone with even a basic understanding of weaponry the difference is obvious.

      Like

      • Jake Williams

        Jim, while your intent is sound and information mostly right, please tweak the facts a bit. You do not need to possess an FFL with an SOT to “legally purchase, possess or sell an actual assault rifle in the United States”. Citizens who can pass a background check can purchase machine guns with BATFE approval (via ATF form 4) from dealers or private citizens provided said machine gun is presently registered in the NFA registry and was registered prior to 1986. The NFA passed in 1934 established the registry. In 1986 congress passed an act called the FOPA with a last minute controversial/illegal “Hughes amendment” which locked the registry preventing citizens from purchasing machine guns registered after that date.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Matt

        Yes, the definition of an assault rifle is what’s important here. Thanks for the clarification and a lengthy one at that. Let me know when you actually address the problem at hand, unless you don’t see one, in which case you’re a part. (We all know you can squeeze off 4-5 rounds if you’re good with and AR-15 or an MCX – yes, we all also know what was used in Orlando. We all know full-auto was banned and semi-auto rifles were banned then the ban ran out ten years later. You’re rattling off common knowledge like a parrot. Can you please get your silly self back on topic?)

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Yes, the definition of an assault rifle is what’s important here.”

        I’m not surprised that the guy who was wrong is suddenly not concerned about facts.

        Like

    • Jeremy Shier

      Thank you. Finally someone who gets the point of this exercise. Unlike the dumbass who wrote this article. It doesn’t matter if she broke the law doing it. The point is she was able to get this weapon that easily. The people we are trying to stop being able to purchase these weapons are planning on breaking the law with them. Why would they care if they break the law in order to obtain set weapon. The fact is they are easily able to obtain it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Brian

        exercising any of our civil rights should be easy. do you have to jump through hoops to have the freedom of speech? she went through a background check and passed therefore should be allowed to have all her rights. how should they stop the bad guys from getting them? If they are on the watch list they don’t get them? what about all the people that don’t belong there? It took Ted Kennedy months to get off that list. Why not look at the fact that as soon as this guy bought that gun the FBI was informed within seconds and no one looked into it why is this not an issue?

        Like

      • Frank Polack

        It doesn’t matter that she broke the law? Really? Just like illegal immigrants who broke the law when they entered illegally? WTF..let’s just pick and choose which laws we might actually obey. If cirminals who used guns in their crimes were held to the letter of the (existing) law, i.e. no plea bargaining to lesser charges, maybe we would start making a dent in the “gun violence”. Criminals aren’t afraid of sh!t..there are no consequences for their actions. And once again, I will attempt to use logic..tell me exactly how strict gun control in Chicago is working

        Like

      • Doug

        The fact is she passed the background check and purchased a fire arm. That part is correct. What she did with it was the crime. She is the criminal no one else. The speed of the purchase is not the issue. She should now not be able to purchase possess control or owns a fire arm that is how the law works.

        Like

    • Phillip

      It was the government that dropped the ball on the joker in FL not the gun store owner. What the author is attempting to do is point out the hypocrisy of the media and left. They break the law to purchase a weapon. Then they say we need more gun laws. That hasn’t worked anyplace. Look. Up the violent crime stats in Australia before and after their mandatory gun buy back program. Today a member of the British government was shot in a country where it is extremely difficult to purchase firearms.

      Like

      • Matt

        Australia? Remind me how many mass shootings since the buy back? There was no waiting period when the reporter applied. Her lies should have been uncovered during that waiting period. It’s called a background check. I did more thorough background checks when hiring sales people. But here you are diverting attention away, at least for anyone stupid enough to let you divert their attention. Not me. I’m still asking you: Why weren’t her lies discovered? How’d she get the gun if she lied? That’s the whole point. How come you haven’t answered that simple question? Hey Josh, why don’t you jump the hell in and answer that simple question with your legal prowess, perhaps lay a nice precedent on us?

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Australia? Remind me how many mass shootings since the buy back? ”

        So, you didn’t look up the violent crime rate then?

        Like

    • I wont call names but i will call BS on the story. First off, the background check takes longer than 7 minutes so,doubt that’s accurate. Also, the point of the story is, she violated laws. Its like someone robbing a bank to show you how to rob a bank. Then say we need better laws because look, i just robed a bank.

      Like

      • ajxn

        Why, didn’t the background check find here lies? Why was she able to get away with that weapon when she shouldn’t?
        Why are you not answer the interesting questions and instead make up new ones. That are hardly relevant or even interesting.

        It is not interesting if she broke some law. The interesting part was with how little control she could do that.
        And you can bet your and mine gun owning arses that she isn’t the only one done this…

        Like

    • Kris

      It wasn’t an assault weapon. Just your standard, run of the mill semiautomatic rifle much like the ones hunters use, just chambered in a smaller caliber.

      Like

    • Jeremy

      Matt,

      An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle. An Assault Rifle is a fully automatic or burst fire capable rifle. An AR is neither of those. Its a semi automatic rifle, no different than many many other semi auto rifles. Because I know your next question, AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for the original manufacturer, ArmaLite.

      Like

      • Brian

        I actually believe that assault rifle is a term made up to scare the people by the media and democrats. The military nor the manufactures use that term ever.

        Like

    • Dcow777

      An “Assault Weapon” as it was originally defined by Jane’s Defense was – A magazine fed rifle that shoots select fire and use an intermediate powered cartridge designed SPECIFICALLY TO WOUND. Governments and manufacturers pushed back against that, afraid that they would be accused of violating the Hague Conventions re: “cruelty” and the general public perception (Or misconceptions actually) and they dropped it’s use.
      I would say the generally at least 90% and maybe more of the states and hunting regulation don’t allow the .223 (5.56 Nate) cartridge to be used on deer or any game above 50 pounds. So would you rather the use something that can drop an elk at 300 yards? If it kills a 800 pound or larger animal just think how well it will work on an average 150 pound human!

      Like

      • ajxn

        Humans ar not 800 pound. A much lighter weapon can be used to kill humans, especially in a night club… But if you have a heavy one, you can take out many humans in one shot. I know people that shot two mooses with one 6.5×55 bullet.

        Like

    • Euragone

      If you violate the law no matter what you should be prosecuted to the max of the law… A free pass to break the law makes you a hypocrite and this is what gun owner are pissed about…. The real problem is not putting the blame where it truely is… The person who broke the law! Distracted driving kill 30k+ per yrs… But you don’t see ban cars or cell phones…

      Like

    • “She demonstrates how quickly she can get an assault rifle in PA”

      So easy that she couldn’t do it without breaking the law.

      Like

  8. She should be tried and convicted for her actions……but we all know this won’t happen…..she has too much “clout” so she will never see the inside of a courtroom. If you or I or the common joe six-pack did this, say for investigative journalism or a college credit for your journalists class……when the ATF finds out and finds you, you will rot in a prison with your buddy “Bubba”. Why the double standard? Why are no criminal charges being brought forth against this women. And unless she had a CCL, there is no way you can fill out an ATF Form in 7 minutes,without reading it, which she obviously didn’t. I believeI myself this maybe a false flag op by a journalist and the government who want to ban guns all together Australia style……she won’t be prosecuted because she has an government mandated agenda to carry out…..she will never be prosecuted, as this only garners more steam for the “anti-gun” debate here as a whole in America.
    People, this is the New World Order you have been hearing our leaders speak about for the last 20 years. You can have my rifle after you steal it from my cold, dead hands. America in no longer a Democracy……it is an Oligarchy!!! I have an arsenal of AR-15’s-enuf to equip a 10 man stick of Marines, but they never jumped out of my house and killed ANYBODY….GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE – PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE….a gun is just a tool as a means to an end…..just like a knife! So when is the ATF gonna produce paperwork to fill out to purchase a machete or a hunting knife? U could have easily sliced up 20 or so partgoers down in Fla. with a knife/machete, and yes, I know he was an islamist, but that has nothing to do with what this reporter actually did…..she will see no retribution from the ATF for what she did…..mark my words…..then soon these gun nuts are gonna call for Australian style gun control……mark my words and see how this plays out…..if that had been you or I….Federal Penitentiary time……but they will not make any hoopla over what this broad did…..fuck me running……the gov’t. needs this publicity to further erode our 2nd Amendment rights……you catch on now?????

    Like

    • Matt

      Of course. Let’s focus on the reporter. Forget the fatal problem she identified. Forget all the others that buy to kill. Kill the messenger.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bill

        Matt you say she bought an assault weapon when in fact she didn’t, to aquire an assault rifle you have to pay a 200.00 for stamp and a additional 500.00 to the ATF, then wait for one year or more to be approved. The same is also applied for silencers (sound suppressors). An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon that the military uses that are called M1A1’s not AR15’S that are single shot rifles. Which means that you have to pull the trigger each time you fire, one round per pull of the trigger. She bought an assault weapon is illegal because she didn’t get the stamp and be investigated by the ATF and the FFL is also wrong for selling it without checking to see if she had the stamp so both should be arrested for breaking federal law. But if she bought an AR15 and passed the background check then all was legal, but to bring up that the guys used AR15’S in Orlando then you are the problem also because an AR15 was not used in the attack on the nightclub. So please check your facts before you act like you know what you are talking about.

        Like

      • Charles

        What fatal problem are you talking about? That she purchased a legal product from a legal dealer? Do you even know what is required for a background check or the 11 major reasons for denial? Do you even know that most of the background check database is filled with no data as much as it is filled with bad data because the states don’t report those people who fail the 11 check points to the federal government, as they are supposed to by law?
        But by all means rage against legitimate business and legitimate products and the supposed ease at which one gets them. Instead of asking hard questions like why the states are failing to do thier jobs for reporting certain behavior to the government or that some folks want to deny others their 5th Amendment right to due process because thier name might be on a list from talking to a police officer or come from a certain region of the world. So critical thinking about parts of why the laws aren’t working must be difficult for you and it’s easier to live in fear of a legitimate business and product as well as deny others thier rights because you are afraid of an inanimate object.

        Like

      • Dave

        Bill, you’re incorrect about the name of a fully automatic weapon. An M1A1 most commonly refers to an Abrams tank, although it may also refer to a flamethrower or the semi automatic carbine paratroopers carried in World War 2. You may be thinking of the m1 (the standard issue rifle of world war 2 (also not fully automatic). It is more likely you are referring to an m16 or the m4, both of which have burst and full auto settings.

        Like

    • ajxn

      Swish….
      Did you see that. Was it a bird, was it a plane. No, it was the point of why she nought it that flew over your head…

      Like

  9. Fucking Idiot

    I hope you get shot with an AR-15

    Like

  10. Pingback: Inquirer Reporter Commits Federal Felony | Shall Not Be Questioned

  11. mike

    Moronic thinking… I am so tired of seeing my neighbor’s flag at half mast after another slaughter…. and all the US congress does is pray…

    Liked by 1 person

    • zonoz

      Yes. Why, instead of wringing their hands and crying hysterically that we need more gun laws, doesn’t our POTUS and Congress eliminate the gun-free zones that are the preferred killing fields for mass shooters? Why, instead of trying to pass more laws that will be ignored by those intent on killing people, doesn’t OUR POTUS and Congress place armed personnel in the places that attract mass shooters, namely schools, theaters, malls, night clubs, and the like?

      I’ll tell you why. If gun free zones were eliminated mass shootings would most likely stop or at the very least be drastically reduced in number which would take away gun control advocates opportunities for inflaming the public with hysterics. If armed personnel were placed at the places that attract mass shooters mass shootings would most likely stop or at the very least be drastically reduced in number which would take away gun control advocates opportunities for inflaming the public with hysterics. Both of those go against gun controllers plans to keep mass shootings going and in the public eye so they can keep their plan to first register all firearms and then eventually take all firearms away from the public. JUST LIKE HITLER DID! Gun control advocates don’t care about those killed by mass murderers, in fact they jump for joy every time there is a mass shooting. How else do you explain the Orlando shooter being on the FBI’s radar 5 years ago and yet still being able to purchase a weapon with them knowing full well his political leanings? The only way that makes sense is that they wanted him to go off and kill a bunch of people. He was an investment in the future and he has finally paid off.

      If the powers that be were TRULY concerned about mass shootings we would have armed personnel in our schools and malls and the like. It’s not like we don’t have the trained personnel to do it. Ex-military would be perfect for the job and I’m sure there are quite a few around that are underemployed since coming back from duty overseas and leaving the service.

      No, our government likes mass shootings, otherwise something would have already been done to combat the problem instead of a bunch of hand wringing and jaw flapping.

      Like

      • Matt

        Yes, of course, the answer is more arms. Just like the kid on the playground hitting the other 30 kids with a stick. Your solution is to hand out 30 sticks so everyone’s beating the shit out of each other. Great leadership.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ajxn

        Wow. I think you got most of all those false and bad arguments NRA teach their members.

        Whi not thighten up the laws. Make all ownership transfering have a proper screening and check before it is aproved? Why not have a register of all current owner of all weapons, so that owner csn be held responcible of his weapons? Why not have all weapons locked up when not in use.
        And make it mandatory for doctors and police to report behavior of people that shouldn’t own weapons.

        Things that actually makes a differens and still let people, that can handle weapons, own them? Why must every schmuck that can walk straight and be sober enough a couple of hours be a gun owner.
        Make owning guns something to be proud of. An achevment.
        And no, no loopholes like private sell or gun fairs.

        Like

  12. Henry Bomar

    i think you are missing the point of this assignment. Focus here has been on ‘did she read what she was signing’, etc.. etc…
    Who cares? the point is, would some person with specific malicious intent be scrutinized for ‘reading the forms’? of course not. he/she would fill out whatever was necessary without regard for what they were signing.
    because their end goal is to buy.the.gun.

    I think this ‘assignment’ was brilliant, simply for exposing the ease of which a person can simply walk in, and within minutes, walk out with an assault rifle… of which then (and there is no way to tell this one way or another) their intent to gun down a crowd of people waiting for a cheesesteak.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mittens

      Cheese-steak? Well then you’ll be safe you cud chewing herbivore. Go hide with the other sheep and pray that danger never finds you and yours. Sam Adams said it better than I ever could: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

      Like

      • Henry Bomar

        Mittens. thank you for your intellectual response. It was fun.
        Cheesesteak is perfectly fitting here, since this incident took place in Philadelphia.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Matt

        Statistically when danger finds someone, if they’re a gun owner, it usually didn’t help but sometimes actually worsened the situation, but I’m sure you have a meme that denies that, or an antiquated quote. I’m equally sure you haven’t read the Stanford University research. But always remember, “The [NRA]…has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued.” I guess you want your guns to badly that little kids dying didn’t give you pause. Should we arm the children next?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Al James

      Laws matter. The whole point of the story was to try and advocate for more laws. But she broke existing laws and committed a felony in the process. Of course anyone intent on breaking the law will still get a gun with ease, be it by perjury on the paperwork or the black market, so all she proved is criminals like her don’t care about laws.

      She should be prosecuted. She obviously thinks we need more laws and the violations of them should be prosecuted, so we need to hold her to the standard when it comes to existing laws.

      People so ignorant of the laws that they break them while trying to claim we need more laws have zero credibility and zero legitimacy when calling for new laws- they don’t even have any knowledge of what laws exist now so they clearly can’t have a solid enough knowledge base on which to propose new laws. And any so-called “journalist” who cared about the job and was good at it would have spent a few moments learning the law, if not before going in the field at least before sending the story to be published

      The great irony is that if she is not prosecuted she will have proven two things- first that the NRA is right and that existing gun laws are not enforced, and second that passing any new law when you don’t enforce the existing ones is an utter folly because laws not enforced may as well not exist.

      Like

      • Henry Bomar

        Al, you lump her in as a ‘criminal’. clearly she isn’t, shortsighted as it was to not know the rules when she went to apply.
        I feel she is exploiting the mere fact of the ease of use, criminal or not, to obtain such a gun.
        The overwhelming feeling is that she won’t be prosecuted, laws won’t be upheld etc… etc… how is that any different that not sufficiently charging the true criminals who go through the exact exercise she did?

        sure in the truest sense of the law, she was in the wrong on a few things (assuming you are correct about those laws; I myself have no idea) but she was making a point and we can’t ignore the point that was made.

        If someone had the mindset to kill people, look how easy it was to get yourself armed. isn’t that the whole point of this.
        Prosecuting her, lambasting her, etc… doesn’t change the fact of what she showed the country here.
        so instead of wasting tax money on trailing her behind a horse in the public square, start actually doing something about the .known. and .true. criminals who with clear intent of harm go and buy these guns!

        I sadly have no solution to offer.
        After reading her report I was shocked at the timeline of events.
        Others read that same report, and focus instead on her criminal activity and how she should be prosecuted. That’s not really solving the problem statement she set out to prove.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Matt

        Ok, we’ll all be putzes for a moment. Let’s pretend the reporter has been arrested. Can we get back to the damn issue now? The next person will walk in, lie on the application, there will be no waiting period or background check sufficient to discover the lie, and in a few minutes he’s got a semi-auto rifle (perhaps and AR-15 or an Sig Sauer MCX – please no more assault rifle corrections). This time he’s a murder walking into your favorite restaurant and your back is to the door as he opens his jacket. I know, I know, your ninja speed will defeat him before he gets off 100 shots, and you’re samurai aim is better than his, and of course he won’t see you turning and raising your weapon, the one you took with you to dinner. Isn’t it just a little bit easier to simply have a waiting period for a better background check? Why do you adamantly insist on arming liars?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Charles

      Wait do you know what the laws are that are required for a background revocation? Do you know that it 25 years tof create a national database of background data on folks that failed those background checks? That prior to the creation of the NICS instant background system in 1993, most states didn’t do a background check or depended on a letter from the federal government. Do you even know what the background checks are? That you will be denied for 11 major points from age to mental health to fugitive from justice or that you can’t be a convicted felon or convicted for DV. Let alone that most states and most of the executive departments of the federal government fails to give data for background revocation to the NICS system. But by all means get angry at a legitimate business conducting legitimate commerce as per the regulations and oversight of a regulatory body.

      Take a moment to think and ask if we shouldn’t fix the broken system by tightening up the failure of the state’s to report background checks to the federal government. Why not read this site and start to ask some questions, http://www.fixnics.com. Question why your home state doesn’t report data to make sure that the background check system has accurate data. Question why there is no data for a large number of folks who may have had mental health checks with the government but aren’t reported to the background database.

      Like

    • August124

      She didn’t buy an assault rifle.

      Like

      • Matt

        Oh please. The Orlando killer bought an MCX which chambers better than an AR-15. (I’m sure someone will argue that because they’re so darned gun savvy. Ooh aah.) Can we stop playing gun expert and get back to the issue?

        Liked by 1 person

    • SSE

      So because she had no derogatory information in her background check and outside of the whole straw man issue and whether she read the paperwork or not, was legally eligible to purchase a firearm, it’s a hole? That’s stupidity at it’s finest. It’s a hole in the system to issue a drivers license to someone with a clean record, that has passed their driving test, paid their fee and is authorized a license. That’s EXACTLY what you’re saying. The assignment was garbage and the logic behind it completely flawed.

      Like

      • Matt

        It wasn’t completely flawed. Not even a little. You won’t complete the application, get it approved, then pass the written part, then the driving part, then get your license to drive a car in a few minutes. Then your insurance company will run cross references before issuing the policy – a nice built in redundancy. Actually your comparison was garbage. It’s not exactly what I’m saying, not even close. (And why the all-caps?) Omar Mateem got an MCX because gun controls are flawed, not the logic behind the reporter’s assignment. Refresh my memory: where was the reporter’s written test? Her gun training? Title and tag? Proof of liability insurance?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Matt

      She got a semi-auto rifle in a few minutes. That’s the point. It’s always been the point. The only point, in fact. If it’s not the point, when why did she choose that for title? This is investigative journalism. It’s designed to “sneak” into a situation that otherwise will not be attainable, like cops going under cover, like reporters posing as employees to catch a boss preying on female employees, like hidden cameras in daycare centers. If you’re not allowed to secretly video tape other people, then should we arrest the reporters when they obtain proof that employees at daycare centers are slapping around our children and screaming insults at them? No, of course not. They are showing us a problem, and now we have to fix it. First you have to get over the fact that a reporter broke a law. Of course they get an exception; that’s the whole idea; they get immunity so they can do their job without fear of being prosecuted, because they’re doing their job. If she was off the clock, then your criticism might be valid. When she’s doing it as part of her job, your criticism is utterly meaningless and wasting our time. Get back on point.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Don LaRue

    You need to re-read the Abramski case…Particularly what Scalia stated in his dissent. What is illegal, is making a false statement/answer to a question/statement that the ATFE has on the Form 4473 that in its self, is a false statement. It’s a false statement because, buying a gun for someone else and with that persons money, is NOT illegal under federal law when both persons involved can legally possess firearms. Federal law never, and still doesn’t, prohibited such a transaction…It all comes down to a question an administrative agency(ATFE) fabricates on the Form 4473. Letting an administrative agency create a CRIMINAL event outside of Congress’ intent of the law….Is clearly a subversion of your legal system and just goes to show what a SHAM court the supreme court is.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Rachael Onimus

    In her artical she did state that she does not have a LTCF I shall take a screenshot.

    Like

  15. Rachael Onimus

    Sorry it says a LTCF was not required which which implies she does not have one

    Like

  16. Trueman

    Wow. You completely missed the point of her article. Did you just want to draw attention to yourself or do you truly believe she deserves to be punished for what she has done??? If anything, her “breaking” the law in this situation only furthers her point on how easy it is to obtain and misuse firearms in our country. Find something useful to report please, as opposed to trying whistleblow on fellow journalists.

    Liked by 3 people

    • “If anything, her ‘breaking’ the law in this situation only furthers her point on how easy it is to obtain and misuse firearms in our country.”

      If anything, it shows how easy it is to break the law if you don’t know and/or don’t care. Thus, it should be obvious that only law-abiding folks are affected by these laws and the ones (whatever they might be) she wants to have implemented.

      Like

  17. Rob

    To be fair, it’s not possible to violate federal firearm laws, as none of them are legal in the first place. However, States do have some latitude in that respect according to the limits of their own Constitutions.

    Like

  18. It’s people like the author of this article that needs to take a cold hard look at themselves.

    Instead of applauding the heroicism of showing how easy it is to acquire firearms by ANYONE, eloquently illustrating the point of how dangerous the procedure is… They’re witch hunting the reporter because of a “technical” straw purchase…..

    Like the other commenter suggested, you sir are a moron in the first degree.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Pat Roison

    So your hair splitting is going to be that “the paper” is supposed to assume human form and appear in a gun shop? I hope not. Or is your point that a representative of the paper is supposed to buy the gun? Which she was.

    Are you actually a lawyer?

    Liked by 1 person

    • He is wrong on both points he tries to make. In my opinion, he is so incompetent that he should,lose his license, or he is a deliberate liar and should lose his license.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kris

        Everyone is missing the point. A full ban on guns, wouldn’t have stopped the Orlando shooting, because the shooter, had DHS(Department of Homeland Security) Clearance, because he worked for a contractor/company, employed by the Government.

        All this show’s, is how intellectually bankrupt and depraved, leftists are. I’m beginning to think, that article recently written, where researches admitted to “accidentally”, flipping the results of a study on leftists and right wing individual’s, is far more true then anyone can realize.

        In the initial release, back in 2012, they tried to say, “Conservatives are more likely to be intolerant, authoritarian, and psychotic”. A few day’s ago, the researches came forward with the real results, that found, “Leftists are more likely to be intolerant, authoritarian, and psychotic”.

        If he is wrong, cite the law exactly, since your the expert! If not, stop gas lighting, because on an emotional level, you merely “want him to be wrong”.

        Like

      • Matt

        By the way, call out Kris on his comments. Omar Mateem was a low-level employee of GS4. GS4 had a contract with the Department of Homeland Security. But GS4 wasn’t employed by the DHS – that’s just silly. A contract has a term and promises of equal value [jump in any time, Josh], but no party to the contract becomes an employee of the other entity. Not only did Mateen have no such DHS clearance (as Kris purported) but GS4 “has been denounced in recent years for not training enough security…and for controversial work….” GS4 is just one more company that got too big and as a result doesn’t do a good job. Mateem was a grunt with no such clearance whatsoever.

        Courtesy: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/g4s-orlando-shooting-omar-mateen/486908/

        Kris. When you contract with a government entity, you don’t get high-level clearance, rather you get bullied by the larger entity into making promises about how you’ll protect their IP or PII or whatever’s at stake, and adhere to their stringent guidelines. More likely your lawyers and their lawyers go back and forth redlining a BAA until all parties can agree. But you know all this, because we’re the intellectually bankrupt while you’re the genius.

        And if we’re so stupid, then can you explain what you mean when you say, “All this show’s, is…”? When you put apostrophe-s on the end of “show” you either make it possessive, in which case you are about to introduce something that belongs to “show,” or you’re making a contraction to join two words, “show” and “is” into one word, “show’s,” in which case your sentence would be “All this show is is….” Perhaps just take out the apostrophe so it makes sense? Kinda like how you never put a comma outside of quotation marks, although you did (a few times).

        Normally I never criticize another’s grammar or spelling. But when you start insulting other people’s intelligence, then you’ve opened yourself to scrutiny (and you’re off your game). The plural of day is days, for instance. Maybe next time you can leave out the insults?

        Liked by 1 person

  20. Brad

    Laws are for the little people, not for our would be lords and masters.

    But perhaps we should test this principle. Has anyone ratted Ubinas out yet?

    Like

  21. Pingback: SayUncle » Another “journalist” breaks gun laws?

  22. S Still

    I dont understand..thats what wrong with this country.This woman was showing how easy it is to purchase a gun for a reason duhh..why would you talk about how many laws she broke who cares!!!If its to help save lives then shut up.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mike Czap

      Oh.. it’s ok for her to bread the law because she proved a point… I’ll make sure I tell the cop I wanted to prove to my readers that my Harley can do 200 miles per hour. Thst should get me out of a ticket right? Maybe she could have killed some people too while she was making a point…. oh, she’s not like that, she does not want to kill anyone.. neither do the millions of gun owners. They just want to protect themselves and enjoy shooting sports and hunt. Not bothering anyone. She a moron.. she played a stupid game without reading the rules and now she should accept the stupid prize she won. Just like any other person who breaks the law while buying a firearm. Because we want the current laws enforces right? Nobody should be given special treatment when it comes to gun laws right?

      Like

    • August124

      Aren’t journalists supposed to do their homework on the things they write about? Had she done so, she wouldn’t have written what she did or broken the law. But she has an agenda and doesn’t care about facts or laws.

      Like

      • Matt

        But Mike, August, you’re not a reporter doing investigative journalism. Hop down from those podiums. Focus. There’s a problem. Stop killing the messenger already.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. Jennifer

    None of this matters. The point is she bought a automatic rifle in practically no time with no questions asked. Someone who is going to use it for damage doesn’t care about all the violations you cited. It just shows how easy it is for anyone to get one even those who shouldn’t have them.

    Liked by 3 people

    • “The point is she bought a automatic rifle in practically no time with no questions asked.” She did not buy an automatic rifle (aka “machine gun”) — she bought a semi-automatic rifle. There are major differences in legality and processes between the two, and when one comments not knowing the difference, it pretty much invalidates your arguments. If she had been attempting to buy an automatic rifle, it would have to have been ’86 or older, would have cost her tens of thousands of dollars, and she would have had to apply for the permit, be investigated by the FBI, and pay for the “tax stamp,” which would have taken her months.

      “It just shows how easy it is for anyone to get one even those who shouldn’t have them.” How does it show anything related to “even those who shouldn’t have them”? She was not a prohibited person.

      Like

      • Matt

        Knowing the differences between the legality around semi-auto versus full-auto doesn’t invalidate anyone’s argument. Don’t be so haughty. Full-auto costs more, is still illegal, yea yea yea. But you’re right about (only) one thing; the reporter should not have been able to get the semi-auto (yet she did). There’s a problem, but you’re probably focused on killing the messenger, ignoring the message, because focusing on the message, focusing on the problem exemplified by the reporter, would bring your dear guns into question, heaven forbid.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Stevie

        The problem is that she wrote the article to insinuate that anyone could run out and legally buy an “automatic rifle” in a matter of minutes which is entirely false. There is a huge difference in the process of purchasing an automatic rifle compared to that of purchasing a semi-auto.
        Whether she knew that or not is unclear but if she is writing an article about it then she should know the difference. Especially, being that she is writing the article in an effort to expose a flaw in the process.
        The fact is that she and the majority of today’s media would rather create news than to report the news. Very rarely do you see a report that is truly objective and honest. Which speaks volumes about the integrity of those that do the writing. It’s a shame that you can’t believe hardly anything that you see in the media these days. The writers write based on their political, personal and religious beliefs/agendas rather than facts..!

        Like

    • Mike Czap

      Not an automatic weapon…. and prove that anyone can go buy one from a licenced dealer… go find someone with a felony or any other charge that would prevent them from buying a handgun, and ask them to walk into the store and buy an AR15… they will not get it. If you don’t know about firearms or the process in which you purchase them.. than shut your liberal pie hole and learn something. If she was hell bent on showing how easy it is. Than she should turn herself in, plead guilty to the crimes she committed and serve her sentence just like she believes other people should.. after that, she can walk into the gun shop and attempt to buy another rifle. Which her background check will deny her the firearm because she is a felon, proving that the background check does work. Just because you are proving a point, does not excuse you from breaking the law. If I prove that the Dodge Charger can break 200 miles per hour and I get a ticket for doing so.. do I get to say to the judge I was making a point for a story and the judge will let it go? If I want to prove that I can kill 5 people just as easy with a knife as you can with a gun.. will I not be charged with murder because I’m proving a point? Damn you liberals are stupid as fuck. She wants the gun laws, she broke the gun laws, anyone else who lies on the form is prosecuted for breaking thoes laws. She is not special.. well, maybe she is, just a different kind of special. She wants the stricter laws, yet feels she does not have to abide by them because she hates guns? That’s like saying I don’t think I should get fat because I don’t like cake.. put her in jail. Show that the gun laws do work and honest Americans can buy firearms and it also shows that honest Americans have been made into criminals because of all these stupid laws that do nothing but hurt honest Americans.

      Like

      • Matt

        Of course she should not turn herself in or be punished in any way. The free world needs investigative journalism. It’s always been around and always will be. Like when Bryant Gumbel’s Sport Center team had a 13-year old boy pose as someone older. He couldn’t get cigarettes. Couldn’t get beer or a lottery ticket. But guess what he could get? But yea, you keep on making a career out of yelling at the reporter. You keep on fighting against better background checks and waiting periods while these weapons increase in numbers, in minutes, while our children’s world becomes more and more unsafe. Should we arm them next?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Mike Czap

      They ask lots of questions on the form.. then they run your background which is linked to your state ID.. all she proved is that people with clean backgrounds can purchase firearms.. oh no.. why would an honest person want a firearm? We all know that the only legal, law abiding citizens in this country are liberals with an agenda… just like this woman. She a good person, she would not break the law on purpose. But anyone who breaks the law by accident, who was buying the gun for themselves should be held accountable and have felony charges and fines and their whole lives ruined right? Because she does not really like guns, she should be exempt? I don’t like drugs, so if I get cought with heroin on me, I should not be charged is what you are saying?

      Like

      • Matt

        Where was the training? Written test? Usage test? Proof of insurance? Oh damn, that’s cars. Ok, this one’s easier: waiting period?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jennifer, she did NOT buy an automatic rifle. Read several comments above of what’s actually required , since 1934 and strengthened since 1986 , to actually buy an automatic weapon. An AR-15 is less a harbinger of death than the car you drive or the pool you swim in.

      Like

      • Matt

        Yea yea yea, someone got the weapon wrong. Let it go. Focus. My car or pool won’t kill 50 and injure 50 more in a few seconds, and there are two tests, training, health requirements, proof of insurance (with it’s own cross referencing), registration, transfer of tag and title, and regular inspections for cars, so what’s your point there? I needed to install a fence at least 4 feet high with a locking gate, completely enclosing my back lawn before I could install a pool, then the pool had to have a railing with a locking gate as well, and the state inspector inspected both. None of this happened in a few minutes, but I’m sure you’ll have more fun correcting someone if they accidentally call an AR-15 or an MCX a machine gun when they’re only semi-auto. Yea, that’s what matters.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oby

      She DID NOT buy an automatic weapon!!! Geez, people catch up with the rest of us. It is illegal to own fully automatic weapons unless you have a special permit from the feds. She illegally purchased a semi-automatic AR-15. A totally different animal!!!

      Like

      • Stevie

        Thanks for pointing that out..! I get so sick of ignorant people.!! The liberal media just keeps lying about firearms in an attempt to sway and scare the public to fit their beliefs and agendas. They are always sure to emphasize that people are buying and using “automatic rifles” which is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. NO ONE, is just going out and buying automatic weapons on a whim. I don’t care if they are the most upstanding citizen or if they’re the biggest crook or how much money they may have, it is impossible to go out and legally buy an automatic firearm simply because they want to. It is a lengthy process in which an individuals background is highly scrutinized. There is a very thorough and well documented process one must go through before they can legally purchase an automatic firearm, on both the federal and local levels. Please people, quit believing everything the media tells you.!!

        Like

      • Matt

        We’re caught up, thanks. And your exclamation points are very fancy. The reporter got a semi-automatic rifle in a few minutes, with a terrible background check and no waiting period, but you’re ranting about people mixing up weapons?

        Liked by 1 person

      • ajxn

        It can still kill lots of people within a short time span.

        So now when you shown off, how about explaining how people shouldn’t be able to do what she did.

        No, no need for banning guns…

        So, how to make sellinng and buying guns safer?

        Like

  24. Kelly

    Regardless if she violated laws she still proved how simple it is for someone to get a firearm. Anyone planning to murder others won’t really care about violating these laws either. The article is pointless to try and drag her through the mud for the point she still proved which is that the current laws in place are a joke.

    Liked by 2 people

    • August124

      More people are killed by drunk drivers. I don’t see anyone having to get a background check to buy booze or cars, like she had to, to buy a rifle.
      Also, most gun violence happens in ghettos/inner cities. I don’t see anyone addressing the root cause – fatherless homes.
      Orlando, San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, Boston, happened because law enforcement..your government…failed. Repeatedly. It is your constitutional right to defend yourself. When seconds count, your government shrugs.

      Like

      • Matt

        No background check for cars? No training either? No waiting period after the initial application? No written test? Driving test? Proof of insurance with it’s own cross referencing of these other controls? No regular inspections? And no transfer of tag and title with the cross referencing through databases there? None of that with cars? Damn, I didn’t realize getting a car was so easy. Oh damn, my bad: getting a car isn’t that easy. Getting an AR-15 or an MCX is.

        Like

  25. Jeez! If a terrorist was walking across the street with a bomb, you’d be more concerned with him jaywalking then carrying a bomb. Talk about missing the point!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Biggfoot44

      Her so called point , is really a non point. A lawful, non-prohibited person is able to purchase the most popular rifle in America in a reasonably timely manner. ( Presuming one is the actual purchaser, and not making an illegal Straw Purchaser.)

      She did NOT purchase an Assult Rifle or Automatic Rifle. Doing that would have requiring a specific (uncommon) class of firearms dealer, submitting fingerprints, photographs, a signoff from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of her jurisdiction of residence, and a $ Tax Stamp aka transfer tax. Of course that $200 would be trivial compared the tens of thousands of dollars an AR pattern true assault rifle would cost. And the process would take up to a year. ( Changes to NFA process taking effect later this year, but above is current process.)

      If she wished to write about the process for purchasing a firearm, she could have certainly done some actual Reporting and inquired with any or multiple of : Any FFL ( licsensed gun dealer), ATF, PSP, any of the Pa based Gun Rights organizations, or gasp , the NRA , either the HQ or Pa based Field Representive.

      No her “mistakes” are not trivial, non famous, non media people get felony convictions, huge fines, and prison time for that.

      Danger to the public ? The weapon used in the largest mass murder by a single person was a gallon of unleaded gas and a match. ( By more than one person, that was exceeded by truck bomb , and hijacked airplanes respectively.)

      The single greatest factor of of being victim to shooting based mass murder, is being in a government mandated helpless victim zone, aka Gun Free Zone. Either a state wide unable for regular citizens to be armed, or a specific location. Only 1% of mass shooting occur where it is possable for licensed or otherwise aproved citizens to be armed.

      Like

    • Terrible analogy. One person is doing something legally and then breaking other laws, and the other is doing something illegal and then breaking other laws.

      Like

    • Matt

      Bravo! You nailed it, Will. Everyone’s killing the messenger. But when investigative journalists uncover daycare centers abusing our children, we don’t jail reporters for hidden cameras.

      Like

  26. JT

    Yes, the 4473 asks a lot of questions. But she was subject to a federal back ground check, which she passed. It matters not how long the transaction took if the process was completed in it’s entirety. However, completing the process in seven minutes, including the back ground chek (as I do this for a living) I find highly doubtful…especially since she stated she has never done this before. I bet she never does it again.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Stevie

    Awesome ..!! Couldn’t have happened to a better person.!! I’m not sure if this is the same case as the Katie Couric Documentary crew that recently did things very similar to this while making their documentary in which they purposely edited to make it seem as though one of the gun dealers she interviewed was uneducated and as a liar. A couple of the production crew members went out and purchased several AR-15’s from different gun dealers and met someone in a parking lot to buy one. They actually drove across state lines to purchase the firearms and then transported them back across state lines. Of course they broke many Federal Firearms Laws in the process. The last I heard was that they were “looking into” charging the production crew members with breaking several different FFL laws. I really hope that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law since they are so concerned with folks breaking the FFL’s..!!

    Like

  28. George

    The guy who wrote this is a moron and anyone who thought what he wrote was valid is also a moron. A “straw purchase” is when someone buys a gun on behalf of someone else who cannot pass the background check. It isn’t when a reporter legally buys a gun then turns it over to the police department. Perhaps Mr. Prince got his law degree from Trump University.

    Like

    • humanoid

      Incorrect. A straw purchase is simply buying a firearm for another party. There are legal and illegal examples of straw purchases.

      Mr. Prince raised the point that Ms. Ubinas made a straw purchase and FAILED TO REPORT THIS ON HER PAPERWORK. If she HAD reported it, it would have been perfectly legal, but she omitted information from both the gun store and the government, which is lying.

      What Ms. Ubinas did is no different than if I purchased a Glock 17 and marked on the paperwork that I was “the sole purchaser of the firearm”, but then turned around and gifted it to someone else with no warning. At that point it DOES NOT MATTER if the person I gifted the pistol to is able to pass a background check, I still committed a crime by lying about my intent.

      In this specific case, a corporation purchased the firearm, but Ms. Ubinas did not disclose this information and took possession of the firearm as if she was the sole purchaser. She committed a felony right then and there. To have done this legally, a representative of her employing company would have had to be present and the representative would have had to fill out the paperwork and make the purchase himself/herself, then Ms Ubinas would take possession of the rifle after going through a background check of her own at the point of sale.

      And make no mistake, companies do indeed count as a legal party when it comes to the purchase, procurement and ownership of firearms. The simplest thing Ms. Ubinas could have done is purchase the rifle on her own and have the company reimburse her for the expense, but she didn’t see fit to do it the proper way.

      If I did this with my employing company not only would I likely be fired for no disclosing the purchase to my boss ahead of time, but I would have committed a felony and would have been brought up on charges for it, doubt in my mind. My company would likely also file a lawsuit against me in civil court. I guess it’s ok for extreme left-wing authoritarian boot-kissers to get away with these crimes, though.

      Like

  29. You’re entirely out of topic here and what you write . She admitted she has never owned a weapon in her life and she decided on the moment to get it, go figure a shop calling it “the rifle of the week” or something like this and having it on display. But this is the same hypocritical thing you contest to her, with the difference she had no malice in doing it, while you clearly had. Shame.

    Like

  30. J Bob Dixon

    She overpaid for that ar. She could have got one for $200 less.

    Like

  31. George Losoncy

    Good thing the anti-gunners posting here don`t own guns. Some of their rhetoric was violent.

    Like

  32. The mental gymnastics. Ugh.

    The woman bought herself a gun. With money from her employer. The employer, presumably, didn’t care whether she kept the gun, gave it away, or sold it (the article is silent as to this, but she made the decision to take it to the police of her own accord, and without first seeking permission of her employer. So, it’s no straw-man purchase.

    Like

  33. She should be prosecuted for the simple fact she’s going out of her way to coerce the public into having their constitutional rights taken away.

    If any of you morons still believe guns are the problem then there’s no helping you. Criminals BY DEFINITION don’t obey laws so WTF makes any of you believe that more laws will make a shred of difference?!
    Aren’t heroin and crack illegal?
    Did the laws stop the use and sale of them?
    Isn’t MURDER illegal? There has never been a law that prevented a crime from happening. The only reason people believe it will ever make a difference is because they’re too stupid to think critically and form their own opinion. Instead they let their TV do their thinking for them.

    Like

  34. Lovely example of Sodom Logic… And from a Lawyer?! Why didn’t I ever imagine that an upstanding minister/acolyte of Law & Justice would twist and turn in that way… However, this one’s for the files… It’ll be in the book when I get it written… Thanks for posting…(but seriously, you probably ought to take some courses in ethics…)

    Like

  35. Tom

    I really want to understand your logic on this ridiculous post.

    First, it is not a straw purchase, and your attempt to simply state that without explanation is embarrassing. You know it is not a straw purchase. Please identify the prohibited party that she purchased the gun for to constitute this as a straw purchase. She purchased the gun legally, she never transferred possession of it to a prohibited, she never intended to transfer it to another party, and then delivered to the police. Who is the prohibited party?

    You incorrectly cite Abramski to say she is in violation. Abramski, which to refresh your memory, is a situation where a person falsely misrepresented that the gun purchase was for them. In Abramski, the prohibited party is anyone who is given the gun after the sale because the false misrepresentation (i.e. the lie) makes the purchase illegal. You cannot purchase a gun if you lie during the application. Where is she making a false representation? You attempt to say a corporate credit card reimbursement because it is an assignment is equivalent. You and I both know you are completely and utterly wrong. She made a credit card purchase with a credit card that is in her name, but you argue because she may be reimbursed for the purchase it violates the law.

    Take Abramski and change the facts to make the purchase legal. Instead of buying the gun for his uncle and making false representations, the uncle could have purchased the gun himself and then been reimbursed, been paid in advance to buy the gun for himself, or the applicant could have truthfully stated who the “actual buyer” was.

    Next, you state you practice in “firearm law” and yet you incorrectly interpret a statute? Your argument that she drove around therefore in violation of § 6106(b)(8). Please direct me to the case law or statute that indicates a temporal requirement to not violate the statute.

    Finally, you infer she since she took pictures with the weapon that she must also have drove with the weapon in violation of the statute? You call them “those pesky pictures.” You mean that picture showing her carrying the weapon in a closed box which complies with the statute?

    Wonderful job on getting people to read your blog. You thoroughly discredited yourself and your expertise in “firearm law.”

    Like

  36. Ed Ruppel

    Well written article! I sent an email to the Prince Law Offices, about possibly drafting up a petition, to see if we can get someone (State prosecutor maybe?) to address these “journalists” that break the laws, already in the books, all in the name of a story. These journalists want to see criminals punished, and create even more gun laws, how about we punish THEM for the laws we already have!

    Like

    • Matt

      Investigative journalism doesn’t get arrested; it shows us where arrests might be warranted. One must first understand their role. If they wear hidden cameras and uncover abuse at child care centers, will you arrest the journalists, perhaps let the day care provider continue slapping around your child? But yea, go on, keep killing the messenger when you don’t like the message, while we all squint and shake our heads.

      Like

  37. Chris Martinez

    You get to move a firearm from the dealer (to home) provided the firearm is in a “secure wrapper.” (That term is undefined as I understand it.)

    Like

  38. Michael Adams

    Obviously, Joshua Prince. Esq, you are in favour of more guns, in the general population because that would be a good thing and prevent more deaths. You retard 😦

    Like

  39. Carl M

    Ok, I follow all your arguments. I am a second amendment supporter, BUT regardless of all the violations she made, she still was able to buy a gun. So, when some wacko wants to do the same, where does the process stop the said Wacko from getting it
    I don’t understand the argument

    Like

    • Brian

      What is there to stop a wacko from getting behind the wheel and running people over? Or even to stop someone from drinking and driving. You can’t stop crimes before they happen if you could we wouldn’t need police. The real argument here is the people’s right to protect themselves. If someone had a gun in that club you would have a completely different headline

      Like

      • Matt

        The car argument again? Get real. We’re not that easily distracted. Cars have applications, lengthy waiting periods, written tests, driving tests, registration, insurance with its redundancy features, then regular inspections and registrations forever. But yea, you go ahead and make that comparison, because now more than ever, I want all these controls for guns. Thanks Brian, good point!

        Like

    • Matt

      You must be so happy.

      Like

    • Matt

      Hey, it looks like Breitbart and HotAir picked up the story. At this rate I’m sure Reuters, or BBC or Economist will pick it up any day. Meanwhile this is the type of story BBC will cover: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34525150

      Straw purchases are the problem. Agree? Obama’s been trying to address this but republicans won’t budge. Agree again? Ubinas showed us straw purchases are still a problem, right? You and I know Paula Reid isn’t going to jail; that’s ludicrous.

      If you sent your child to daycare and they get screamed at and kicked, and you have no idea because they can’t tell you, will you arrest the investigative journalist who breaks the story with hidden cameras? Be a leader. See the bigger picture. Why are SOX-compliant businesses required to have a whistle-blower program if they want to sell securities on an exchange?

      Like

  40. “where she provided further detail on her purchase of the rifle, including her admissions to seemingly violating state and federal firearms laws, and answered viewers questions.”

    Ahem … that’s the point.

    Like

  41. “where she provided further detail on her purchase of the rifle, including her admissions to seemingly violating state and federal firearms laws, and answered viewers questions.”

    That’s the point!

    Like

  42. Pingback: Philadelphia Daily News Columnist Helen Ubinas Seemingly Violates State and Federal Law in Straw Purchase of Firearm | Rifleman III Journal

  43. Lee Holcomb

    There’s no waiting period in Philly????

    Like

  44. John Bruce

    oh she bad. And you? Oh my.

    Like

  45. It’s called “civil disobedience”. Duh…

    Liked by 1 person

  46. what does it matter? they won’t prosecute liberal reporters for breaking the laws.

    Like

  47. Pingback: The Fatal Flaw in the Calls for Gun Control | Appeal to Reason

  48. I did not see her live video stream follow-up, but after reading her initial column, I sent her the following email (on June 15):

    [my email address removed]
    Jun 15 (6 days ago)

    to ubinas
    So, you bought a rifle in Philly.

    Do you have a clean record?

    Do you intend to kill or threaten anyone, or use the weapon for any illegal purpose?

    Did you buy this weapon for yourself?

    Are you a US citizen?

    Did you fill out the ATF Form 4773 completely and honestly, while showing proper identification?

    Did you pass the NCIC computer background check?

    I suppose you answered “Yes” to these questions. I give the same answers whenever I buy a firearm. So why should I not be able to exercise my Constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”, a right that “shall not be infringed”. I am many millions of decent law-abiding Americans. Who and what are you?

    I’ve looked at your screaming left, anti-Constitutional, anti-American spew and invite you to renounce your citizenship and leave my country.

    You stated that you didn’t want the gun and gave it to the police. Fine, then why did you buy it (to make fodder for your screed)? So you bought it to give it away?

    One final question: were you, or will you be reimbursed the $759.99 (plus tax?) for your purchase? If so, then you lied on Question 11a of ATF Form 4773. (Note from the top of that form: “Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 USC 921 et. seq., are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine.”

    That is what is colloquially known as a “straw purchase”, highly illegal.

    I will forward this email, along with a copy of your column, to the BATF and to the Federal Attorney for the Philadelphia district.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/helen_ubinas/20160614_Ubinas__I_bought_an_AR-15_semi-automatic_rifle_in_Philly_in_7_minutes.html

    Have a nice day.

    Like

  49. Pingback: They Don’t Make Muckrakers Like They Used To  | Shot in the Dark

  50. ajxn

    And you totally missed the point.
    This is how a upset human can get their hands in a weapon without being stoped.
    Nothing was checked before she was given a weapon like this.

    That procrdure needs to be change. I reckon that it is harder to buy some medicin than weapons like this. Harder to buy a car tham this.

    Why not a background check before changing owner? What is bad with that.

    Except for the point flew over your head and you missed it, nice check of laws. Whiched you made something about the point about how fantastic easy there is to buy a weapon.

    Like

    • Dcow777

      Actually we get the point exactly. The “waiting period” crap has been tried REPEATEDLY with no effect, either way. Crime doesn’t go up, or down. It does effect someone (Like a woman who escapes an abuser with children who doesn’t want a gun around because of the kids) getting a gun quickly if a threat shows up.
      Read this http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/04/woman-fatally-stabbed-berlin-twp/28461361/
      Yeah a victory for NJ gun control, he stabbed her to death! He NEVER would of got a gun legally because of all his felonies. This is one of the initial stories, noting her dying waiting for the NJ police to grant or deny HER gun purchase permit. Yeah waiting periods!
      No need to look up how the story ended. He, on the run from cops and the US Marshalls, somehow illegally obtained a gun and committed suicide with it. So the only net effect is that a coward woman beating scumbag murders his ex but at least we don’t have to support his ass in prison for the rest of his life.
      I guess that has to be our only consolation here. If you want you can go to those English websites trying to ban knives now in the UK after they banned all handguns, semi-auto rifles, and shotguns and try and start your own US branch patterned after theirs.

      Like

  51. Pingback: Another reporter violates gun laws while buying a gun for a story

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s