Friday, June 17, 2016

That old Second Amendment only goes so far...

    When the newspaper sent a photographer to take a picture of the Maxon sign, the gun shop called the police. Who came, reminded them that this still is America, despite their best efforts. This was that kind of story.  

     There’s something soothing about buying a gun.
    Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the most pleasant summer day—the lush green trees, the fluffy clouds, blue sky–took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.
     Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue. I couldn’t even figure whether bringing an assault rifle into Chicago is legal. The Internet was contradictory. The Chicago corporation consul’s office punted me on to that black hole of silence, Bill McCaffrey. I found that Illinois has a 24-hour waiting period between buying and taking possession of a gun. Unearthing that fact alone made the exercise seem worthwhile. I was learning stuff.
     Reluctance melted when I walked into the large, well-lit store. Maxon’s looked like a meeting of the Mid-50ish Guy Club. A dozen grizzled men in ball caps , milling around. More on the glassed in shooting range. Imagine a steady, muffled pop-pop…pop going on behind the rest of this column.
     I eyed the cases of weapons....

To continue reading, click here.

30 comments:

  1. "Satanic Marxist?, JM I think it's time you get into a padded cell.

    Anyway, NS, great column. My first thought was that the ST should have given you a company credit card incase you didn't want all $ that on yours, even if temporary.

    But then I'm left shocked at what they claim was an excuse for not selling you a gun. That bunch is indeed anti freedom of the press (and also as shown by their reaction to the photog.) What a crock of sh*t they fed you. Perhaps you or the paper should threaten a suit. Talk about being discriminated against for flimsy purpose. Yes, they would sell that to just about anyone else, no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this was just a publicity stunt and the ST probably wanted the gun shop to cancel the sale. If they were serious they would have sent Mark Brown or someone else whom the gun shop couldn't refuse. Of course, if the ST really wanted to make it a stunt, they would have sent Mary Mitchell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would sending Mary Mitchell make it a stunt? Because she's black?

      Bitter Scribe

      Delete
  3. I would like to imagine that lots of people are denied the opportunity to purchase firearms for the exact reason maxons gave. i sincerely doubt it. but it is a legitimate reason . this like so many circumstances points to a significant problem we face in our effort to reduce gun violence in our country. while the reason maxons cited is a regulation as compared to a law, there are already many laws in place restricting the purchase and especially the use of firearms. if followed and enforced these laws should keep people from being shot. they are not followed by a tiny number of people and even when enforced not prosecuted to a point of incarceration, or even punishment. while i support additional laws regulating the ownership and misuse of guns, if we aren't able to enforce existing laws how will additional laws lessen the carnage being wrought upon the people in our nation? i believe educational programs are a key to a policy designed to foster personal responsibility amongst the populace. that and severe restrictions on ammunition. without bullets a guns is only a club. i don't see where ammo is even mentioned in the constitution .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question that came to my mind as I read NS's column was... were the "negative findings" that led to denial of a gun sale found in a background check, or because the salespeople were familiar with NS's writing? NS has written columns and a book re: his experiences - very open, and to the support of many in recovery, or thinking about recovery. "history of alcoholism" would not show up on a background check....

      Delete
    2. Ammo is covered under the umbrella of "arms." Because without it, a firearm is rendered pretty much useless.

      Here, from the Heller opinion,
      "We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."


      You made a lot of excellent points until that. Abstinence only gun education isn't working. I'd like to see shooting back in schools. Firearms education just like driver's education available, but not compulsory, with the permission of the parents.

      Delete
  4. Not that I'm interested in such weaponry, but where I live I can walk into a shop, no FOID, plunk down money, and in a few days be the owner of an AR. Scary, but even scarier is anyone can order the bits one at a time off the internet and assemble their own at home, no background check required. 'Merica!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true at all. The purchase of the lower receiver via online requires and FFL transfer, which requires a background check. The purchase of any firearm online requires that. An AR15 is useless without the lower receiver.

      Delete
    2. Yep the lower is the serialized portion and considered to be the actual controlled item. I love when false hoods are stated and then promptly refuted

      Delete
  5. I'd like to know how many other people that shop refused to sell to on those same grounds.

    Bitter Scribe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Easy: All of them. If you fail a NICS background check, the FFL cannot legally sell to you. If they do, they'll lose their license, livelyhood, and go to jail.

      If the reason they didn't sell was because he was a (yellow) "journalist", they wouldn't have even taken his money to begin with. They can refuse a sale to anyone for any reason, for good reason: no FFL wants a gun they sold to end up in the hands of a psycho.

      This "journalist" can appeal to have his rights restored in court, depending on the state.

      Delete
    2. Except it states in the article that he did not fail the background check. His gun rights are uninfringed.

      Delete
  6. This column is a reminder of why I tell people that Neil Sternberg is the best newspaper writer in the country. It reads almost like a short story with a surprise ending. It is a fair and literate peek into the world of an industry that doesn't care to be examined in the light of day. The system is so rigged to protect the arms industry that they can just sneer at anyone who tries to shine a light on their mad world - and sneer they do. Great work Neil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dennis. I can assure commentators above that no one expected the sale to be denied. I have an FOID card and no criminal record whatsoever. If they hadn't ID'ed me as a columnist, they never would have denied the sale. This was an assignment, and I executed it to the best of my ability, after arguing, again to the best of my ability, that it wasn't worth doing. Turns out, my boss was right, as he so often is. It was worth doing, from a journalistic point of view. From a personal point of view, well, I'd have rather gone to the Cubs came and written about the new plaza.

      Delete
  7. I remember a few years back our school district decided to allow a gun show in our high school while classes weren't in session. The public outcry over this invasion of a gun-free zone forced the school board to cancel the event. It's funny how the NRA doesn't believe gun free zones should exist, yet they forbid weapons at their stores, shows and conventions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not the Wendy who won your Saturday fun event, if that's what you mean.

      Delete
    2. Neil, what if you now get placed on the "NO FLY" LIST? There is no realistic appeal process and some Congressman want to make it a total "NO FLY NO BUY" FOREVER LIST as determined by Government employees with NO APPEAL?

      Delete
    3. The NRA does not prohibit firearms at their annual meetings (convention/show) unless required by law. "Vendors" are usually required to disable the firearms they display to comply with the rules of the building, but attendees are usually free to carry loaded, operable firearms as long as they are legally allowed to do so under the state and local laws. Also, no background checks are performed at the annual NRA "gun shows" because no guns are allowed to be sold, again, to comply with the rules of the local convention center/wherever it's held. No ammunition is allowed for sale either for the same reason.

      The only place the NRA prohibits its members and attendees from carrying their personally owned firearm is a secured designated area for politicians and celebrities to give speeches.

      Delete
    4. "...yet they forbid weapons at their stores, shows and conventions."

      Citations required, please.

      Delete
  8. Great column. I have a FOID and a CC, but I hate the atmosphere in gun shops. Entering one is akin to attending a Trump rally, only everyone is armed and crazy. From what I've overheard in these shops, I'm surprised that there hasn't been an attempt on President Obama's life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I suppose we can credit the Secret Service for that.

      Delete
  9. Does this mean you lied on the form 4473 that requires you to disclose convictions for domestic abuse/battery?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I have no convictions. A completely clean record.

      Delete
    2. perhaps the store was eroding on the side of caution. Not boing how your arrest for a domestic assault played out, they did not want to get in trouble by selling a firearm to some who couldn't own one. The Lautenberg Amendment To the Gun control act of 1968 makes it a felony to sell or for you to own a firearm if you have a domestic assault on your record. They very well might have been expecting you to show up and say "Gotcha, I am not allowed to own this but you sold it to me.

      Delete
  10. Well, you'd have to really bend over backward to interpret the store's actions in that fashion. Far more likely is that the motive for mentioning Neil's history with alcohol and the domestic dispute that got him in trouble several years ago was to squelch the article altogether, believing of course that Neil would not want to be raked over the coals one more time and would kill the piece to avoid embarrassment. Not a faithful reader or he/she would have realized that Neil is as forthcoming about his own frailties and mistakes as a human being could possibly be. I think most of us daily readers find that quality endearing even if we don't share it.

    john

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So it's my conspiracy theory that they are afraid of getting caught doing something that is illegal and losing their license versus yours where the store in a effort to stop a story, they blackmail him with his drinking and past run in with the law? To stop a story, that up until that point looks pretty positive for the store to me? I guess anything is possible.

      Delete