Ammo For Sale

« « Set TiVos to stun | Home | NBC on Black Rifles » »

More on those Boston papers (they all look the same, ya know)

In an update to the bit on what The Boston Herald left out of the story comes this:

Via Glenn and Tim in comments (whose google-fu is stronger than mine), no disclosure at The Globe either. Why don’t they mention the involvement of an anti-gun group’s president with their reporter? Oops.

4 Responses to “More on those Boston papers (they all look the same, ya know)”

  1. Bruce Says:

    Yeah, that column was a fun one to fisk.

    I spoke with my unnamed source on this issue today who’s not at liberty to divulge any details as to the behind the scenes goings-on, but when he tells me anything, you guys will be the first to know.

  2. Cactus Jack Says:

    “But because Bailey didnít keep the gun, itís unlikely he broke any federal laws, said Randy Chapman, president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a former prosecutor. ďI donít see a criminal intent there. I just see someone facilitating a news story,Ē he said”

    Whether he kept the gun or not and was “facilitating a news story”, he still broke federal law!

  3. Nylarthotep Says:

    I thought the Herald was the Massholechusetts right wing paper?

    Heh. It is.

  4. Jeff Pyle Says:

    Randy Chapman should no better…the law is clear that one’s intent to break the law is irrelevant in whether one actually commits the crime. The intent required is the intent to commit the act that is outlawed.

    And, there is no First Amendment defense to a crime where the crime is conduct, as opposed to speech. Certainly there is no “news gathering” defense.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges