If someone steals something from you (let’s say a gun) and then later returns it to you, can he still be charged with, prosecuted, and convicted of theft?

Yes, because he’s already committed the crime of theft. That he later returns it to you may reduce the likelihood of him being prosecuted (since prosecutors have more important things to do), and may reduce his sentence if he is convicted, but it doesn’t make the original crime go away. AFAIK there is no general prohibition on “straw purchases” as such, only on certain transfers and/or bringing the guns across state lines following such transfers. In that case, the original crime was never committed (unless, of course, Bailey is lying, and he really did take possession of the gun first, bring it home, and then give it back).

I am confused about one something.
You made and arranged what you called a straw purchase to show how easy it is to do and stated that what you did was illegal and what you did was a crime.
Now you can not understand why the ATF and police would investigate someone who admitted that the committed a crime.

If you had been doing a story on how easy it was to get OxyContin. You found someone and told them how to fake painful condition such as a back problem and gave them the money and told them to go to a doctor so that they could get prescription for OxyContin and then you went to a drug store with them to have the prescription filled and gave them the money to pay for the prescription and then you wrote an article about it and went on the radio and told everyone about it. If you were then investigated you would be surprised?

Have you ever seen a story about a person who was upset about illegal drug activity and the lack of the police to make any arrest. The person then goes and buys drugs and goes to the police to report the sale only to be arrested for possession of illegal drugs.

Why don’t you do a story on how easy it is to commit an armed robbery, get a knife from your kitchen, go to a local store, announce a hold up, take the money and go home and mail the money back to the store and write an article about that. (Sorry, I hope you went to a store that was owned by someone who is as anti-gun as you or you might have a small problem.)

From your mouth to God’s ear. I would love to see Bloomberg get caught.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Bailey needs to start off his stories with “once upon a time” like all fairey tales do.

One of the global IANSA people helped create the deadly TV report.

See my link for details.

Dear Mr. Bailey,

I’ve read your original 11/30/05 column, as well as the referenced column and I have to say I’m a bit puzzled at to what the intent was here. Specifically:

• If you and Misters Heggie, Belair and Rosenthal agreed beforehand that Mr. Belair would take your (or rather, the Boston Globe’s) money for the purposes of transacting a straw purchase for an out-of-state person, it occurs to me that you and Mr. Belair have broken existing federal firearms statutes. Under these circumstances, your call for more gun control seems a bit misplaced given that your actions are already illegal.
• If you and your companions simply gave Mr. Belair $240 to purchase the firearm in question with the understanding it was his to keep, you’ve shown little more how easy it is to give a moderate amount of your employer’s petty cash to an acquaintance, hardly fodder for yet another gun control crusade.

Under the former scenario, you and your friends should be prosecuted (as well as the seller if he knew of your conspiracy). Indeed, it is likely that the BATFE confiscated Mr. Belair’s new purchase as evidence in their investigation. I’d be talking to a criminal attorney about now if I were you. If, of course, the understanding was the latter then I wish Mr. Belair enjoyment in shooting his new purchase.

While you are contemplating your next column on the topic (unless advised by your attorney to shut up about the whole thing), perhaps you should ask yourself why New Hampshire, bristling with guns and the “loony” people who purchase them by the thousands, has a murder rate one-half that of gun-hating Massachusetts (1.4 vs. 2.7 per 100,000, per the FBI’s 2005 UCR). Does this not seem counterintuitive?

Regards,

[Jeffersonian]

So the story is that a non-criminal legal resident of the state bought a firearm legally and took it home with him. Where’s the story?

Or is it that Bailey contemplated trying to persuade a legal buyer to sell him a gun unlawfully, so he could smuggle it across a state line, but decided not to do that because the law forbids it. In other words, the law worked. is that the story?

And by little harder I mean we will stop and search every out of state car leaving the state. Because that is the only way you will put a dent in the “problem”.

They really are their own worst enemy.

Heh. True. As to who I got it from, the emails and comments came pouring in all at once. So, multiple hat tips.

The article is actually good for firing up the base of both sides. We’ll look at it and take away from it what you can see all around here, and they’ll look at it and think what a bunch of goons and thugs the “gun lobby” is.

But it’s more toxic to the gun control movement, because what they definitely don’t want getting out to the public is that these “easy” purchases in other states are already illegal, and that even though that’s the case, that it’s easy for anyone with intent to break the law.

And, had the buyer purchased 100 guns, the dealer would have been required to report that multiple purchase to the Feds.

Oops, I guess he “forgot” to mention that too.

Damn the NRA. It’s all their fault,

I’m not sure if it was my post or if you were already working on it when I posted it, but I got that link from the anti ‘macca’ from the Brady Bunch site. He thought it would be good fodder for how reactionary we all are.

They really are their own worst enemy.

Belair took the gun with him; I’m afraid of guns.

Isn’t that like having someone who is terrified by dogs writing an article about the new dog park in town?

Wow – Pulitzer material…

BTW, Bailey is lying at some point in this episode. On his previous appearance on WRKO, he admitted he had made a straw purchase and when asked about the location of the gun, he mumbled something about a desk drawer somewhere. Now he says that he had never taken possession of the gun. Who knows which is the truth?