UPDATE: It would seem Steinberg was denied by the gun store rather than NICS, based on publicized history. In this case, no crime was committed.
Neil Steinberg tries to write one of those gotcha stories on how easy it is to buy a gun in America. The only problem is that the sale was denied because Mr. Steinberg apparently has a history of alcohol problems and domestic abuse. The even better part is that he bitches about it, and accuses the shop of bias against journalists:
I told her I assume they wouldn’t sell me a gun because I’m a reporter. She denied it. But hating the media is right behind hating the government as a pastime for many gun owners. They damn you for being ignorant then hide when you try to find out.
What a tool. I guess this is a situation where you can ask whether he’s stopped beating his wife. It’s worth pointing out that he committed a felony by attempting to buy the firearm in the first place. Again, I can pretty much guarantee you he’ll get the David Gregory treatment.
The Chicago Sun Times isn’t the only felons out there. Just like the Philadelphia Inquirer last week, CBS News would also seem to have committed a straw purchase. In this case, after seeing the report where CBS admitted they bought the gun rather than the journalist, the gun dealer ratted them out to the ATF. Good for them! Again, I fully expect the David Gregory treatment, but its worthwhile pointing out how easy it is to commit an unintentional felony if your familiarity with gun laws is lacking.
The Chicago Sun Times article – the author is (nominally) exactly the kind of person who the antis say shouldn’t have guns; a drunk wife-beater. So he gets upset when they won’t give him a gun because he has a history of alcoholism and DV convictions?
Not convicted, just charged. That makes it fall into a legal grey area since it is not technically a prohibited sale (taking into account my ignorance of Illinois law, maybe they do prohibit?). The gun store made a judgement call, a good one, of denying a sale to a person with bad character.
What felony was committed? I don’t think he was convicted for beating his wife, and I don’t think alcohol is a controlled substance.
If the NICS check came back denied as a prohibited person, his act of saying “No” to the domestic violence question 11(h) and then signing Form 4473 saying he wasn’t is the actual felony. It’s a signed confession if you are denied.
Same applies to question 11(e) as that is the “habitual drunkard” and drugs prohibition. “Stimulant” covers alcohol. If you’re convicted for alcohol related offenses, you get that prohibition.
Penalty for lying on the form is 10 years/250K.
He wasn’t denied by NICS. He passed the background check. The gun store chose not to sell to him. He didn’t commit a felony. The question, I believe, is if you have been convinted of domestic violence.
Did he pass? If so, how did the store know about it? Or was there media coverage?
The writer seemed familiar to the dealer. It wouldn’t surprise me if the writer had confessed to his drunkeness and DV charge in some earlier work.
He’s been one of the major Chicago editorial page writers for 25 years or so. And he just released a book, and been on a book tour, about overcoming his history of alcohol and substance abuse and violence towards his wife and family. And yes, when he was arrested for beating his wife IT WAS VERY BIG NEWS.
I didn’t see anything about the store choosing to deny him. It sounded to me like he got put into manual review, and they eventually came back with a denial.
Read the story he wrote about it, and the stores response. It was clear they knew exactly who he was when he started talking to the guy at the store. Sales guy recognized, by his name, he was the journalist. Asked him about it. They spent over an hour discussing guns and the writer asked if he could quite the store staff (they said no – this is actually in the original sun times story). They knew he was an alcoholic wife beater like everyone in Chicago. So they made the decision not to give him the gun.
Honestly, it is the right decision but it’s also pretty clearly motivated by the fact this guy was an anti-gun journalist.
At this point it’s unclear whether he was ‘convicted’ or not. Various sources are looking into . As to how did the shop know? Why the POS not only wrote numerous articles but also a book about him being an alcoholic wife beater.
He was not convicted. There were no felonies. This guy’s story is well known in Chicago.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-11-24/news/0511240217_1_domestic-battery-public-defender-steinberg-home
However, I do think that if they sold him the gun, he would have said, “Geez, they sold one to me even tho i have a spotty past.”
Thank you. I have updated the post.
There’s no habitual drunkard question on the 4473. That’s something PA asks on an LTCF application. The alcohol abuse would not be a factor in the federal application, but a DV conviction would.
In the article it said that he asked and was told that he was not denied by the feds. Also, they do the background check on the spot, so you know if you passed right away.
The reporter is a well-known quantity in Chicago. His problems with drinking and problems with his wife have been widely reported, and he has written a book on it.
My guess is the gun store was having second thoughts and googled him.
And if they DID sell the gun to him, he would write, “How could they sell to me, someone who has a widely publicized drinking problem?”
Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Sorry, potheads…also I think alcohol qualifies. I don’t have a 4473 handy to double check. Maybe after I get done panic buying Ar-15’s…
Alcohol is not a controlled substance.
Alcohol is not a “controlled substance” under the Controlled Substances Act.
You can be a raging alcoholic and buy all the guns you want.
That taunt, “I bet you wouldn’t sell me a gun, I’m your enemy,” is the sort of statement that, in a sane world, would be met with spittle in the face, not an “of course I’d never discriminate against you just because you’re my enemy” denial.
I really thought David Gregory would be the only one, but now? Someone needs to create a webpage keeping track of all these anti-gun journalists (and other activists?) who publicly violate gun control laws and escape prosecution. Perhaps unindictedguncriminals.com?
I nominate Bill Maher to the list, since he admitted on his HBO show to owning two guns, and also toked up live during a different episode. Apparently Maher thinks his California medical marijuana card is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
I read the story. The dealer asked for his FOID card. Which means at some point he passed a background check. Yet the reporter claims to have never owned a firearm. So why would he have a FOID? Plus I am sure you can’t get a FOID quickly, 30 days is what is on the IL website for FOIDs. Some things just don’t sound right about his story. Maybe it was in the fiction section of the Sun-Times.
I have a friend who is very active in Illinois firearms rights circles. I intend to ask him just what the story is. Apparently FOID card holders are run through the NICS system *daily*, and will lose their cards almost instantly upon getting flagged. This must have been either a Federal thing or the shop googled him and found him guilty of lurking-while-being-an-asshat.
This.
They’re ‘supposed’ to lose their FOID’s. This doesn’t always happen.
Either the gun shop realized it was a put-up job ala Kuntzman and decided to not provide him ammunition, so to speak, or there is a lot this reporter opted to twist rather than reveal as the truth.
The one time I was denied a NICS check (paperwork error at USCIS), the examiner asked to speak to me. I was present at the time. But if a denial comes back from NICS, they are required to notify you of such for appeals purposes given you are now potentially facing a felony charge and have given the police probable cause to arrest you for it.
So something smells here. Either this guy passed the NICS check and the gun shop decided that they should choose the form of their destructor or this guy is spinning a wild tale rather than admit he failed the background check.
And if he was denied the gun shop probably can’t come out and say so due to privacy and legal reasons. The guy can make up whatever story he wants.
Also, this.
So I was thinking, isn’t it virtually impossible for reporters to do this sort of investigative segments, and not commit perjury and a straw-purchase?
In every case you have some outside party (the news corporation) directing the purchaser to buy a firearm on its behalf. Then it’s paid for either on the company card, expensed, or “that’s what we pay you a salary for.”
Why, it’s almost as if the law punishes buying firearms under false pretenses.
“I’m not going to hold it against anyone for voting “no†on this, but now we have the Dems on record as rejecting any compromise solution.”
Silly gun owner – compromising is for conservatives, not liberals.