It’s becoming more and more apparent that when it comes to guns- and especially gun rights- there’s a legal double standard.
For instance, if you’re an “average” Washington, DC resident who happens to own a “high capacity” magazine for a modern sporting rifle, you can expect to find yourself in legal trouble. If, however, you’re an NBC news reporter trying to make a point – on television- by having the exact same object with you while you’re live on national TV, the same illegal object apparently morphs into an “illustration of an illegal object” and the old “No harm, no foul” law comes into play.
Over the past week, I’ve done my best to keep my opinions to myself regarding Katie Couric’s involvement in – and defense of- a so-called gun documentary “Under the Gun”. There are several reasons why I’ve done that.
Most importantly, I haven’t seen it. And I don’t plan to. I’ve been around enough to know that documentaries -especially when they’re hot-button issues- will always be seen as having an innate bias. Which brings me to a second reason why it wasn’t on my viewing list: it’s not exactly a secret where either the producer or the host stand on guns. They don’t like them.
To me, that’s the end of objectivity in journalism. Having seen promising reporters’ careers ended because they monkeyed with the facts in “investigations” it’s a point where I don’t grant leeway. Facts aren’t pro or con; that’s why they’re called “facts”.
Facts simply are .
Now, however, there’s a troubling fact coming out about the documentary. It seems that Stephanie Soechtig, the film’s director, knowingly sent a producer to Arizona for the specific purpose of purchasing firearms illegally. It seems he achieved the goal – and in the process committed as many as four felonies.
If that’s the case- and it’s pursued as it would be if it were a pro-gun “documentary” Ms. Soechtig is guilty of conspiracy to commit felonious acts. Either that or she’s guilty of “embellishment” of her story. To me, either are punishable acts.
The gun purchase is punishable under federal firearms laws. The act of “embellishment” should get her banished from any future work in journalism.
Having been a street reporter, producer and investigative reporter, I know there are times when you skirt the edges of the law in order to do your job. As a journalist, you try to protect your confidential sources. But you can’t hide under the protection of the so-called shield laws if you know a crime’s going to be committed, especially if you -acting in your role as producer- are responsible for initiating the act.
Here’s now the NSSF’s explains the problem:
“Journalists and filmmakers investigating what they see as shortcomings in laws are not absolved of their responsibility both to gain the requisite understanding of how those laws work and to abide by them.”
That’s why the NSSF and most other Second Amendment-conscious groups are so inflamed at an interview Soechtig gave where she acknowledged sending a producer to Arizona to purchase firearms. As a non-resident, those purchases were illegal.
Now, the NSSF is calling for- justifiably, it would appear to me- for a federal investigation into the matter.
The NSSF’s call for an investigation isn’t based on fairness in the documentary, it’s based on the fact that laws are supposed to apply -equally- to all citizens.
It’s no secret that several of the “celebrities’ in the outdoor industry have been burned because of stupid things they did in the making of their TV shows. Granted, their explanations have at times been on the far side of lame, but they have all generally taken their medicine and owned up to their acts.
It’s the same point federal officials roll out at every opportunity, if there’s a pro-gun person involved in anything that even hints of a conspiracy. “The law,” we’re reminded, “is the law- and it’s supposed to apply to everyone equally.”
And it’s true. That’s the reason the lady holding the scales of justice is wearing a blindfold.
The NSSF’s right when they write that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) should open a criminal investigation into the whole matter.
If they don’t, the case could be made -again- that there are two classes of citizens.
agree that the PLCAA “should be kept and we should punish the criminals who commit these acts not the law-abiding manufacturers and retailers of lawful products which get misused” instead of “this law should be repealed because the current protection enables manufacturers and retailers to sell guns to people who shouldn’t have them, because they know they cannot be sued and don’t face any consequences” (26 percent). Only 4 percent were not sure. 