‘Under the Gun’ Director, Stephanie Soechtig, Confesses to Federal Gun Crimes

Ms. Stephanie Soechtig excitedly states in a video interview with The Lip TV how she brazenly broke federal gun laws for Katie Couric's anti gun hit piece Under the Gun.

Stephanie Soechtig
Stephanie Soechtig
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)-  A story AmmoLand News recently broke, left Katie Couric facing a firestorm of criticism for the deceptive editing tactics used in her latest anti-gun documentary, Under the Gun.

Tactics that falsely attempted to portray gun rights supporters as being dumbstruck by a question about background checks.

The biased editing led to EPIX pulling the documentary and Ms. Couric issuing a statement acknowledging the deception. Unfortunately, the controversy with this sham documentary may only be just beginning, as now it appears that criminal activity was committed by makers of the film in the process of making it.

As was later reported by numerous outlets, Ms. Couric intentionally made members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League appear speechless following a question about background checks, when in fact they provided a well thought out and intelligent response. You can read the whole story in an AmmoLand News post from the League’s president, Philip Van Cleave, here.

Naturally, the proponents of the film are doing their best to bury the controversy, but no amount of PR work may mitigate the likely violations of federal law induced and committed by the documentary’s staff.

In February, The Lip TV  interviewed the film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, prior to the film’s release. During this interview, Ms. Soechtig openly discussed how she sent a producer of the film (most likely producer and LAWYER Joshua A. Kunau), who resides in Colorado, to Arizona to purchase firearms (including three pistols) privately. [original video marker 1.27]

According to Ms. Soechtig, the producer met a private seller in a parking lot of a local Wendy’s, and in less than four hours and without a background check, obtained a Bushmaster rifle and three handguns. ( AmmoLand News has highlighted the exact video portion in question below, see the entire video on The Lip TV link above. https:// youtu.be/DSHJSfHsvmw )

Katie Coruic Stephanie Soechtig Crime Video
See same video below from another provider.

Ms. Soechtig incredulously states in her interview how such a private party transfer was legal, but, in fact, under existing federal law, it was illegal.

It is unknown what happened to these firearms and whether or not they returned with the producer to Colorado. Presumably, this crime was committed in order to highlight what the film’s proponents believe to be current inadequacies federal firearm laws, and to educate viewers on the process for obtaining a firearm. As Ms. Soechtig stated, all of the film’s content was “news to me.” Apparently, existing federal law prohibiting private interstate firearms transfers is also something that will also come as “news” to Ms. Soechtig and her staff.

Under current federal law it is a violation for any person to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the state in which the transferor resides. (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5).) Thus, by asking a private party in Arizona to sell the Colorado producer firearms, Ms. Soechtig and her staff induced an otherwise law abiding citizen to commit a federal crime.  There was nothing legal about what Ms. Soechtig and her staff did, despite their slanted attempt to portray in their documentary the private sale of firearms as unregulated and legal.

It is also unlawful for any person other than a dealer to transport into or receive in the state where they reside any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained outside that State. (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3).) Violations of these laws can result in a hefty fine and a felony conviction of up to five years. (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(D).)  Further, if two or more persons conspire to commit any offense, and at least one person commits an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, each party to the conspiracy can also face an additional fine and imprisonment for up to five years. (18 U.S.C. § 371.)

In other words, in nakedly advocating for more gun control laws in a one-sided and deceptive piece of propaganda, Ms. Soechtig and her staff likely violated existing federal laws by apparently conspiring to unlawfully import firearms from Arizona into Colorado, and by failing to properly conduct an interstate firearms transfer through a dealer.

It is clear from the fraudulent way in which gun rights supporters were portrayed in the documentary, and the unlawful way in which firearms were obtained to support the documentary’s gun control theme, that neither truth nor the law were concerns of Ms. Soechtig or her staff in creating the film.

Given this latest development, Ms. Soechtig, Katie Couric, and any other individual involved in this possible conspiracy should seek legal counsel immediately, as each could face criminal charges stemming from violations of federal firearm and conspiracy laws.

AmmoLand Editors Update 11:11amEST 6/3/2016: (In response to readers questions) While we may personally agree that the private transfer or sale of guns should be lawful regardless of what state or territory you live in or come from.  The fact is, current federal and state laws, prohibit the exact scenario discussed by Ms. Soechtig, and she should be held to the same standard as all of us under the law.

AmmoLand Editors Update 8:48pm ESt 6/7/2016  The Lip TV files a Copyright Takedown Notice with Youtube to prevent AmmoLand News from showing a small clip of their video of Ms. Soechtig breaking the law.  

“AmmoLand is deeply disappointed that Youtube would pull a video that is part of a legitimate news story highlighting main stream media's total disregard of Federal and State gun laws. We will be appealing the copyright takedown notice. ” Fredy Riehl, Editor AmmoLand News.”

The Lip TV files a Copyright Takedown Notice with Youtube
The Lip TV files a Copyright Takedown Notice with Youtube

AmmoLand Editors Update : 10:19amEST 6/08/2016 Added back embedded video. This time from alternate source not hosted or managed by AmmoLand News.

Same incriminating Video from alternate source:

  • 133 thoughts on “‘Under the Gun’ Director, Stephanie Soechtig, Confesses to Federal Gun Crimes

    1. Jail them.
      Hypocritical citizen disarmament proponent… But I suppose I didn’t need the initial descriptive.

      1. Time and time again these people break the law and are never charged. Like the New York commentator who held up ” ILLEGAL 15 round Magazines” on his show and was never charged with possession. If it is done by a Anti Gun Nut it’s OK but if a citizen does it BY Accident he is jailed.

      2. BloomingIdiotBurg’s crews did the same thing, travelling to Texas and buying some handguns at a gun show from a private seller (not FFL). They wanted to prove how easy it is to buy guns at a gun show… of course what they failed to indicate in their resulting film screed is that though TEXANS can walk into a gun show and buy a gun privately no background check. Chicago and New York gangbangers cannot….. further it remains illegal for ANYONE with a felony conviction or other serious crimes in his record to even possess any gun or ammunition. That husband of Gabrielle Giffords also made a big deal about how HE bought some sort of AR rifle at a gun show in Texas…. breaking the same interstate private sale laws Kouric’s team did, and Bloombirgs.

        So what we have here is a double standard of “Just Us”… sort of along the same lines as the charade of Fast and Furious… federal agents who DO know better illegally arranging straw purchases of arms from FFL’s, then illegally exporting them into Mexico without going through the permitting process REQUIRED by the Department of State.

        When government and media break existing laws with impunity, then use those breaches of law to pressure for MORE infringements, something is seriously wrong… government are no longer responsible to THE PEOPLE. They all forget from whence cometh their paychecks….. the slop in the public trough they so eagerly and lavishly consume upon themselves, when they deny us our rights.

        1. Didn’t you know, there are classes of people in the US immune to laws. You can see it every day with people like Lorretta Lynch and Obama and others of their ilk. I guess that laws are for the “common class”.

    2. Two points. First, when left-wing progressive liberals are on a crusade, the genuinely believe that whatever they do cannot be considered illegal, unethical, or even just downright wrong. Second, like University of North Texas professor (and dean of the School of Journalism) Dorothy Bland, they begin with an agenda and proceed to blend truth, half-truth, and anything but the truth to validate their agenda. And, like Professor Bland, if they’re called out on the facts they can always claim, “It’s my prospective.”

      1. University of North TEXAS?! Why have there not been protests? Why have the University’s Regents gotten rid of Bland? She is teaching Propagandan not Journalism.

      1. It pisses me off when they call magazines clips too. Then they like to say ‘gun violence’ over and over too. (No such thing as gun violence)

        1. I agree. They like to use the term, “Gun Violence” a lot. Truth is, using that term in the way they do compels one to believe the gun, itself, is committing the acts of violence. No. It is violence, period. Violence where a gun was used. Do they identify weapons such as knives, clubs and bats when they are used to commit an assault? No, they don’t.

          1. Yep,it’s used to demonize firearms and make law-abiding gun owners look like criminals. I ain’t never heard of knife violence,baseball bat violence,etc. ! Inanimate objects don’t commit violence !

          2. I so hear that. These fool politicians (CA State Senator Kevin de Leon ) that don’t know shit about what they are talking about want to pass gun laws. de Leon is the fool that’s pushing for bc’s on ammo I think.
            However I must disagree on the gun violence. Just recently got out of the hospital due to gun violence and I must admit I never saw it coming, I mean happening to me. Let me explain. Last week I had just finished cleaning my 9mm and 7.62×39 (SKS) “ASSAULT WEAPON” (yeah right) wood stock 30 round magazine,”EVIL” bastard that it is . OK all done so I got up went into the kitchen to find something to eat and while I was gone my 9mm musta plotted with the “EVIL”bastard that it is and upon reentering the room was pistol whipped after it gave me a violent dirty look, then AFTER I’m down “EVIL”bastard gives me a really “scarey” look and butt stokes me up side the head. So I guess the anti gunners were right all along. Maybe just maybe guns are violent. Maybe it’s just me though.I was very pro gun but now I wavier.

        2. I so hear that. These fool politicians (CA State Senator Kevin de Leon ) that don’t know sh*t about what they are talking about want to pass gun laws. de Leon is the fool that’s pushing for bc’s on ammo I think.

          However I must disagree on the gun violence. Just recently got out of the hospital due to gun violence and I must admit I never saw it coming, I mean happening to me. Let me explain. Last week I had just finished cleaning my 9mm and 7.62×39 (SKS) “ASSAULT WEAPON” (yeah right) wood stock 30 round magazine,”EVIL” bastard that it is . OK all done so I got up went into the kitchen to find something to eat and while I was gone my 9mm musta plotted with the “EVIL”bastard that it is and upon reentering the room was pistol whipped after it gave me a violent dirty look, then AFTER I’m down “EVIL”bastard gives me a really “scarey” look and butt stokes me up side the head. So I guess the anti gunners were right all along. Maybe just maybe guns are violent. Maybe it’s just me though.I was very pro gun but now I wavier.

        3. I so hear that. These fool politicians (CA State Senator Kevin de Leon ) that don’t know shit about what they are talking about want to pass gun laws. de Leon is the fool that’s pushing for bc’s on ammo I think.
          However I must disagree on the gun violence. Just recently got out of the hospital due to gun violence and I must admit I never saw it coming, I mean happening to me. Let me explain. Last week I had just finished cleaning my 9mm and 7.62×39 (SKS) “ASSAULT WEAPON” (yeah right) wood stock 30 round magazine,”EVIL” bastard that it is . OK all done so I got up went into the kitchen to find something to eat and while I was gone my 9mm musta plotted with the “EVIL”bastard that it is and upon reentering the room was pistol whipped after it gave me a violent dirty look, then AFTER I’m down “EVIL”bastard gives me a really “scarey” look and butt stokes me up side the head. So I guess the anti gunners were right all along. Maybe just maybe guns are violent. Maybe it’s just me though.I was very pro gun but now I wavier.

      2. What irritated me about the, “We bought a Bushmaster” comment is they are saying it as if the name (Bushmaster) is some legendary, mythical and overtly dangerous firearm. She could have said, “Rifle” but using the Bushmaster name and linking it to Newtown makes the weapon that much more malignant. For comparison, she explained they bought three pistols too. But they didn’t name each pistol by their brand name (ie: Glock, S&W M&P, Ruger, etc…). I guess that, too, was for dramatic effect.

        Plus, for a producer who claims to have studied guns, gun laws and other things in order to make the documentary can’t (or won’t) correctly differentiate a rifle that is semi-automatic or fully automatic (select fire). They are either stupid or liars or both.

        1. funny thing about the Bushmaster of Newtown…… the medical examiner first inside the building afterward declared that all the victims he saw had been shot with a handgun at fairly close range, that NONE had been hit by rifle fire.
          Further, there were two “Bushmasters” at the scene… one was found on the gound outside the school (after the shooting had stopped) and was “seen” being carried by some unnamed person into the woods behind the school. Mystery as to ultimate disposition. Second “Bushmaster” was “found in the trunk” of the car he alledgedly drove to the schol…. was not his, nor his now-murdered Mum’s car, but a “friend” of Mum. I watched the video from the overhead chopper as the trunk of that car was opened by LE, and one long gun was removed….. as the officer began to safe and clear the weapon, it was brutally obvious it was no Bushmaster… hah, not even any sort of AR. It was a semi-automatic 12 guage shotgun, I think a Saiga or look-alike. Large cylindrical bright yellow rounds were ejected one at a time by cycling the bolt using a small protrusion on the right side of the bolt, and those rounds fell out the bottom ejection port. No mag, no rifle cartridges… and we are supposed to BELIEVE these liars that the perp used a Bushmaster to kill the kids and teachers?

          Sick security theatre, all of it.

          1. Been saying the same thing since it happened. They have destroyed any evidence.Bodies? Won’t ever happen.
            Odd thing is how did a little skinny kid like that carry all that supposed firepower and accomplish what he did in the amount of time he did. Ever fire a 5.56 in an enclosed area?Don’t. And as many times as he was supposed to his hearing would be shot along with equilibrium which kinda go hand in hand which takes us back to his marksmanship.In a few minutes and his shot placement and on moving targets? If indeed there were any. But yeah they said handguns just after it happened and I said to my wife “what do you want to bet the were the evil Glocks”after all if someone is oblivious to firearms they will know the name Glock and associate it with evil.

    3. It should be pushed forward that they face charges. Submit evidence to state and Federal authoritie and push till they do something.

    4. Demand letters should be sent to every US Attorney with jurisdiction, that charges be brought against these criminals

      1. How does one find the mailing address and district of the various US Attorneys? Which is the proper jurisdiction and venue?

          1. And when they are Liberal anti-gun advocates as well, then what?

            Just look at what 19 States Attorneys General are doing with corporations that openly disagree with or denounce “climate change”…. ….prosecution.

      2. Find out which county in AZ that gun show was… some of those sheriffs don’t cotton well to such blatant violation of laws especially when used as a tool to further curtain our gun rights. Some Colorado sheriffs would also be “interested” to know about this activity. The home sheriff of this rotten producer also might prove valuable in bringing justice… if she put them up to it, she is part of a conspiracy, per 18USC

    5. I’ll ask the question no one else wants to.

      Why is that illegal?

      Yes, I know, the anti-gun hypocrites are fun to point and laugh at as they wave standard capacity magazines around on TV violating the very laws they claim are vital. And when they start foaming at the mouth about the “gun show loophole” and private sales, despite almost no weapons used in crimes being purchased at gun shows or in private party transfers.

      But answer me this; why is it illegal for two people to exchange their private party for money (or barter) just because of the state they reside in? Now sure, IF the state the purchaser lives in outlaws the firearm being purchased the purchaser could certainly be prosecuted by their home state for owning banned items. Personally I would not live in that state and support that type of stupidity with my tax dollars, but that’s me. And since the State has no authority to violate the Constitution such laws are illegal themselves anyway. Whenever states violate our 2A rights there are always cheers, but I wonder what would happen if a state decided they didn’t want to follow the 15th Amendment, or maybe even the 13th? There would be uproar about how you can’t do that………but I guess only certain Amendments are iron clad with no “interpretation”.

      But I can find nothing in the 2A or any part of the Constitution that states any of our basic rights are unable to cross state borders. If I live in North Dakota and go on a hunting trip with a buddy who lives in Montana and he decides he really doesn’t like the Henry All Weather .45-70 he just bought and I have always wanted one, why should I not be able to buy it from him? Or trade him the prize Elk I bagged on the trip where he got nothing?

      Explain how this unconstitutional law stops criminals?? As this anti-gun moron shows us, the law will only restrict the rights of law abiding citizens while criminals and leftists loons will continue to do whatever they want.

      What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not understand?

      1. Spot on there.. WHY is this illegal? It should not be. I can buy a car, boat, airplane, freezer, house, motorhome, table saw, all interstate, no problem. But when the privately owned merchandise is a GUN, oh my, everyone panic, they’re arming up to create mayhem.

        That aside, the hypocrisy of these “wymmin” creating a hit piece based on lies and deliberately misleading statements, to foment more noise calling for “more common sense gun laws” to “keep everybody safe”, then violating existing laws to make a purchase so they can prove we need more laws to violate is what is in view here. And yes, they SHOULD be prosecuted. All of them involved. I think it was the Killery Unit blathered some lie about how New York’s out of control gun crime rates are all because so mamny guns are purchased in Vermont and brought into New York… but then someone actually ran the official numbers and Vermont, as a source of “crime guns” in New York State, is well below the middle of the pack. Yet she cotinues on, unabated in her lying.

        Perhaps these sorts of incidents should be brought up as PROOF that the prohibition on interstate private transfer be repealed. There is NO REASON for it except they want more transfers “on the books” to keep tabs on us all. Funny thing is, if Charlie in Arizona bought a used gun somewhere ten years ago, then resells it to Pete from Oklahoma who is passing through, no BGC, there is no record of who has it now and where. BUT.. if they both visit an FFL and have HIM run the transfer, NICS, and record the sale in the A&D book of the transferring dealer, there STILL is no record available to law enforcement as to who has it now and where. Any “trace” will show that Some Other GUy bought it new, somewhere. There is no trail from that seller to Charlie, any more than there is from Charlie to Pete. Stupid people are all blowing smoke, working overtime at INFRINGING upon our God-given RIGHT to keep (own, possess, buy, sell, trade) and bear (carry about, transport, ship, use, display, store, etc) our guns.

      2. Well AP, I am so glad that you asked, “… why is it illegal for two people to exchange their private party for money (or barter) just because of the state they reside in?” The answer is: Because the Gun Control Act of 1968 (hereinafter: GCA) says so. The GCA was translated and modified from the Nazi act that disarmed the German people just prior to WWII. Then Senator Dodd got a copy of the Nazi act, had the Library of Congress translate it into English, and then modified it into the now GCA.
        The GCA was promulgated by an elitist Congress, at that time, signed by the corrupt and elitist LBJ, and upheld by a complicit elitist S. Ct. based upon Congress’ power to control commerce. You may notice that the act is entitled the GUN CONTROL act and not the COMMERCE CONTROL act. That ought to tell you something. Then there is the enigma of Congress getting away with limiting our 2nd Amendment Rights with the dubious use of their commerce power! Long past time to het rid of the GCA, the BATFE, and the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Finally, the history of the NFA and GCA are pluperfect examples of why we must have the Right to recall Senators, Representitives, S. Ct judges and impose term limits on all of them

        1. The NFA, GCA, and every other gun control law for that matter, is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Second Amendment (2A) does it state that a certain sub-set of “arms” can be regulated of prohibited by either the states’ of the federal governments and any restrictions of 2A are a usurpation of our rights (Article VI, Clause 2). And since the Heller decision finally confirmed that 2A is a fundamental right (something we already knew), the Constitution protects “arms” of every type from governmental infringements. Therefore any regulation that “chills” our 2A constitutional guarantee is unconstitutional. (Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137)
          As detestable as the they are, we can’t have it both ways, so as far as the Title 18 violations mentioned in this article that these film makers obviously violated (the interstate commerce and straw-buyer prohibition violations), these “codes” too are unconstitutional under Marbury, so the film makers are innocent of any crime. An analogy to prove my point: if any of us wanted to buy a car from a private seller in another state, we can purchase that car with no government entanglements. (Interstate commerce). Or if a friend in another state found a car that we wanted and we sent him/her the money to buy it for us, is that friend not a straw-buyer? No foul in either case and we can do this without the government’s permission. But in the case of firearms it’s prohibited either way unless we jump through their hoops and use an FFL. Yet cars injure more people every year than firearms and firearms ARE our right to keep and bear.
          Title 18 also includes both the “Conspiracy Against Right” (Sec. 241) and the “Deprivation Of Rights Under The Color Of Law” (Sec. 242) provisions. This is how we deal with ALL civil servants (politicians, judges, D.A.s, LEOS, bureaucrats) and everyone else who violates our constitutionally secured rights. Also, Title 42, USC, Sec. 1983 is handy when dealing with elected/appointed usurpers. Look them up.

          1. Sorry but both the NFA and the GCA have stood up to constitutional challenges, and even Scalia stated in Heller that some regulation is constitutional. So until you get a Supreme Court ruling stating that those laws are in fact unconstitutional they are constitutional.

            Hopefully someday we can get these repealed or overturned by the SCOTUS (not in this century if Hillary wins). But they are the law of the land and they are constitutional, the SCOTUS has ruled so.

            1. I was not contemplating getting rid of the NFA or the GCA by SCOTUS review, but rather Congressional repeal. Just for my own edification, in what S. Ct. case was the NFA scrutinized and upheld?

            2. Dirk, I’m a constitutional purist and it’s absolutely ludicrous to think that the Founders would institute a “supreme law of the land” that the people could not read and comprehend. That we need the SCOTUS, some panel of ultra-intelligent sages, to tell us all what the Constitution says and means. Everyone, including the SCOTUS Justices, have their own personal biases which may be destructive to natural/personal rights. This fact makes it necessary that a free society have a “supreme law” that cannot be easily altered or misinterpreted. In fact, the Bill of Rights was necessary to the anti-federalists at the Constitutional Convention to get them to ratify that document. Therefore, we would not have the Constitution in its present for if not for those “unalienable” amendments. In my opinion, this fact makes those ten amendments ABSOLUTE and un-amendable. This makes Scalia’s interpretation in the instance that The Second Amendment (2A) can be regulated by the govt. in his Heller decision. What we all must realize is that at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, the Founders had no love for the idea of instituting a central government, but because it was necessary, they sought to limit its power as much as possible. They rightly recognized that ALL all-powerful institutions of that type eventually morph into tyrannical bodies. Their solution to this inevitability was to recognize a short list of natural rights that would be “unalienable” people‘s rights. 2A is one of those rights and was included to ensure that the people will always remain as strong as the government(s) so that we can put down any/all tyrants that might come to power here. This puts a target on all politicians’ backs when they overstep their powers and as you would surmise, that makes them nervous. This hardly makes them trustworthy to limit OUR 2A right. Therefore, ANY/EVERY bastardization of 2A by the states’ or federal governments (every branch) is forbidden because it IS an unconstitutional usurpation of OUR secured right to preserve OUR republic! And since the people of this republic are the true government and the beneficiaries of a legally binding contract (the U.S. Constitution) between us and those hire to govern us, ALL such usurpations by those we hire to preserve, uphold and defend OUR contract are treasonous acts. Sadly though, we’ve been “asleep at the wheel” for the past century by not reserving our rights every time that govt(s). attempt and succeed in illegally stripping us of them. That fact makes these govt. infringements justifiable in their eyes. These include all rulings by the SCOTUS that do not confirm what we can clearly read and comprehend that 2A clearly states.
              This is the way it should be argued in front of the SCOTUS.

            3. they might be the written law of the land, but they are NOT Constitutional no matter WHAT those nine lawmakers in black pyjamas opine.

              There is a bill, I believe in the House, that addresses this, removing the prohibition from private interstate sales. I doubt the hissyfitters will let it pass, but its being floated…….

              Further, any law passed NOT in accord with the Constitution is null, void, no law at all. Of course, we all know, many people have gone to prison for breaking “no law”……. I can think of a few men who were walking abuot on their own property, armed, as they had been for decades, when federal “agents” happened to be present burning, destroying, killing, stealing, threatening the landowners and their friends….. with rifles trained upon the owners ready to fire….. but it was the men put in danger by federal armed agents who are in jail.

          2. SCOTUS doesn’t actually declare legislation “constitutional,” it rules against claims of unconstitutionality based on arguments presented against the legislation. In their decisions, SCOTUS actually says “This or that law is not unconstitutional for the reasons you presented to the court.” This does not preclude a law from being found unconstitutional for other reasons (not yet presented in court).
            This may seem like a fine point, but it’s essential to understand this nuance when someone declares “the court found this or that law constitutional,” because this reasoning shows that the person making this argument believes a law become unassailable having been challenged and having withstood the challenge. You all may recall that Obama Care has been challenged more than once, demonstrating that having been found “not unconstitutional” in one case doesn’t mean that other arguments can’t be presented that may ultimately prove a law is unconstitutional for some other reason.

            1. @DGO, I am aware of that. I am asking Dirk for the case citation where in the NFA was unsuccessfully challenged, so that I might read it. Or perhaps you have a case cite?

            2. Dave, The problem we have today is that recent SCOTUS courts have become activist courts where Stare Decisis seems to have no or little meaning to them. Article VI, Clause 2 clearly dictates that the U.S. Constitution, as ratified in 1789, is the supreme law. Marbury v. Madison confirms that fact and dictates that: ‘No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect and that anything (statute, etc.) that is in conflict, is null and void.’ It further states that if “any part” of a statute, etc. is repugnant to the supreme law, that the entire statute is unconstitutional. Second, Miranda v. Arizona directs the court to recognize that: ’Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule or law making or legislation that would abrogate or abolish them.’ Third, Norton v. Shelby County directs courts that: ‘an unconstitutional act is not law and it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.’ You used Obamacare as an example to somehow justify that recent court rulings are constitutional. Some are not. In the example you provided, if even one provision of Obamacare is proven to be unconstitutional, the whole damned thing is unconstitutional according to Marbury. The court, ignored Miranda and Norton where Obamacare is concerned, proving that the legislative branch is out of control and that the SCOTUS is simply acting as their “water carrier”. As with Obamacare, the same can be said for most statutes currently on the books these days. Ignoring past precedent (Stare Decisis) clearly proves that recent courts, at least where the progressive Justices are concerned, are operating in violation of their constitutional mandate. The precedent I provided here proves this.

          3. the term “straw buyer” specifically indicates the purchase of a firearm with the intent to deliver it to a PROHIBITED PERSON, that is, a convicted felon, certifiable mental defective, etc. For me to buy a gun for my neighbour whom I KNOW to already lawfully own guns is not a “straw purchase”.

            Purchasing guns from Texas and Arizona FFL’s with the intent and knowledge they would be illegally transfered across the border into Mexico for final delivery to Mexican droguistas is a straw purchase. These video crew members did not “straw purchase”, they were buying for their own use, or perhaps to resell back in Colorado evidently to persons not “prohibited’ under gun possession laws. So, lets be accurate here… there is no evidence of any “straw purchasing” going on here. Only illegal (that should not be) interstate purchases.

            1. If this reply was directed to me, I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page here Tionico. Being a gunsmith, I understand the definition of a “straw-buy” and what that act entails. But unless I missed it, the article does not mention whether the AZ resident that purchased or owned the arms previously, personally knew the CO lawyer(?). If that’s so, he could not vouch for the bona fides of the person taking possession of those arms, those being that he was sane, a non-felon, didn’t use illicit drug, or any other of the requirement found on a 4473. And if he couldn’t do this, this sure sounds like a “straw-buy” to me.

        2. Will Bill, Recalling Senators, Representatives, and imposing term limits on all of them is not enough. If they overstep their bounds, by violating the Constitution they swore to uphold, they should be persecuted and/or lose their pensions.

          1. I agree with B.Zerer that the many courts are practicing Judicial activism without regards to the constitutionality which is what they are suppose to do. For example, when Supreme Court Justice nominee Kagan went before the confirmation panel she said that Second Amendment gun rights are “settled law.”

            Sotomayor made similar reassurances for gun rights. Yet, when it mattered, both of Obama’s justices reneged on their words.

            I don’t know the solution, but the problem is judicial activism.

      3. It has nothing to do with state laws it is FEDERAL law so your comments about living in states … are not relevant. Once the “across state lines” part happens this is a Federal issue and covered b y BATFE. The FEDERAL laws prevents transfer of guns from person to person in INTER state transfers. INTRA state transfers are up to the states involved but once the issue is across state borders then the whole thing changes
        No one is stopping the transfer including the BATFE all they want is paperwork and a background check done
        This has nothing to do with type of gun or the like it is all about the issue of ALL guns going across state lines need to use an FFL and produce paperwork to insure that the buyer is OK to own the guns involved.
        For those looking to notify the appropriate attorney general unfortunately the one that needs to be notified is Loretta Lynch and surely don’t expect her to be too kind to anyone pro-gun. Even though this producer is anti-gun the action will not be well accepted by the USAG’s office
        Dr D

        1. since BATF exist contrary to the Constitution (FedGov have NO authority per the Constitution to regulate or restrice any commerce in arms on any basis) their rules etc are also null and void. We are talking about the way things ARE per the Constitution, not the perverted way to which we have acquiesced over the past century or more. When that pesy Second says “shall not be infringed that is precisely what it means….. and I suspect YOU know the meaning of that word as well as any of us.
          Further, one of the commands given FedGov is to “regulate” trade amongst the states,. That word “regulate” means to “make regular, to function well”. It is NOT to impose twenty seven bazillion lws, rules, “regulations”, permits, taxes, requirements before a simple bit of commerce (I am in Arizona and buy a six pack of cheap beer, drink one that night, and put the rest into the boot and drive them back to my home in Colorado) (swap “beer” and “gun” in the above sentence to get the true meaning). Since the acquisition, possession, transport, ownership, use, carrying about, modification, buying, selling, etc, of a gun is, at root, no different than say an axe, anything restricting or setting preconditions to buying or selling, within or across state lines, is contrary to the Constitutioin.

          Further, the terms of that Second are such that any and all “infringements” at any level from any source, government at any level, city county, private corporations, public transportation, etc, are not only prohibited it becomes the burden and duty of government at all level to be vigilant against such infringements and seek to eliminate them. Instead, government at all levels are the chief infringer on our right to arms.

          1. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Couric, Shittag, and all the other conspirators had to prove the GCA is unconstitutional in order to escape conviction pursuant to that statute?! What fun, they start out to obtain more gun laws, but end up destroying one! Is it too much to pray for? Oh, Lord, I’ll be good! I’ll be good! I’ll be good!

      4. Funny thing thing is, in many states trading the Elk for the rifle might get you in as much trouble. Many states have laws stating you cannot “sell” harvested game animals or parts of harvested game animals. Since it would be traded for an item of value, it could be considered a “sale”. I don’t agree with it…but understand the premise behind it to some degree.

    6. They obviously had no idea about the federal laws that violate the heck out of the 2nd amendment that they were ‘breaking”. People should be held accountable for what they DO with firearms not the fact that they have them or sell them or give them away. That is all just arbitrary moral relativism that has no place in a free society. The Federal government needs to get out of the gun regulating BUSINESS that it is engaged in with the ATF CORPORATION.
      It’s enough to make a maggot gag.

      1. Naw, it is just the hypocrisy that is in the spotlight. The support even STRICTER gun laws… while breaking EXISTING gun laws. The two positions are incompatible.

    7. Yeah hold them to the law like we all would be. Throw em behind bars with the people that are gonna still have guns no matter how many rights they try to take away from good honest people.

    8. If the purchase had been made from a licensed dealer in Arizona, and the gun then taken to Colorado, would that have been legal? Or is it the private party transaction that makes it illegal?

      1. That depends on state law in Colorado. Federally though, it is perfectly legal to buy a shotgun or a rifle from an FFL in another state, fill out the 4473 there, and bring it to your home state. Pistols, however, can only be transferred to you within your state . Thus if you are in another state and buy a pistol from an FFL, they would need to ship it to an FFL in your home state. Then you would fill out your 4473 in your home state and do the transfer there.

        Private sales have to be done within your own state. If you want to purchase a firearm from someone out of state, the transfer must be done at an FFL in your home state. The seller can either ship or bring the firearm to your FFL, they would log it into their book, and you would fill out a 4473 to transfer the firearm.

      2. @Jim In Conroe,

        In order for an interstate transfer such as you outlined above to be conducted legally, the gun has to be sent to a licensed Federal Firearms Dealer in the state where the buyer is a resident, where the buyer can then pick it up only after filling out the Federal (and if applicable, state) forms and undergoing a NICS check. If that state has a waiting period, it must be adhered to as well.

      3. Why do people ask questions that have been answered in the article?

        “Under current federal law it is a violation for any person to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the state in which the transferor resides. (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5).)”

      4. To answer your question in the way that you want it answered, would be to give legal advice, Jim. So just let me say that I am not giving you any legal advice; and further, just for my own part, I believe that we all have to buy from a FFL holder in the state in which we reside. Or we must buy from a person selling from his private collection who lives in the same state as we do. Having said that if I buy some firearm on an auction site, from someone not in my state, that firearm has to go to a FFL in my state to complete the transaction and the paperwork. I hope that you find that helpful

        1. No, you’re not correct. You’re lumping all state laws together and all firearm transactions (long gun and handgun) together. You can’t do that. That’s the really short answer. The long answer is far more involved.

      5. Well, since it is hard to believe that an FFL dealer (in a major firearms store) would knowingly sell a firearm in violation of federal law to an out of state resident, who presents an ID showing his out of state residence, further research has led me to the following:

        “A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.” [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(B)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

        1. Which is exactly what I said earlier. I thought this was common knowledge so I didn’t bother with the legal citation. But from the previous responses, I guess it wasn’t. Thank you for providing it.

          Know the law people! While you obviously don’t want to do anything illegal, it’s also silly to restrict yourself needlessly.

        2. I think, from all of the discussion, that we can all see that the entire scheme is too complicated. I think that none of us can see how the entire scheme will prevent crime. So why are we putting up with this? Way past time for the GCA, the NFA, and the BATFE to disappear.

          1. Bill,it really is a complicated,convoluted bunch of bull*shit ! The AFT is just a criminal enterprise whose whole purpose is to harass and make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

    9. Anyone else remember, back about five years ago, Mikey BloomingIdiotBurg and his minions went to Texas to “prove” much the same thing, video crew atttended a gun show and a couple of the folks bought guns there…. again, illegally per 18 USC. Same deal. And, as I recall, at least one of the purchased items of contraband was a HANDGUN, illegal for a resident of NYC to own without the prior Mother May I Card, and I believe New York State also have some restrictions/prequalifiers for residents to own handguns.

      Even though a few Federal level felony offenses were committed by his crew members, oh his instructions (conspiracy here, no question) nothng happened. But let ME wander into a Texas or Arizona gun show, buy a handgun no BGC and bring it home….. feds find out I will quickly become a long term resident of some GreyBar Hotel owned and operated by GEO.

    10. Sadly, I think the White House will muzzle the DOJ on this incident too. After all, it dovetails with what the President wants, and since he is protecting Hillary, why not these skanks as well?

    11. Ms. Soechtig’s producer’s ‘illegal’ actions prove just how useless gun laws really are. They only put restrictions on people who are ‘law abiding’. Criminals break all kinds of laws everyday, so there’s no crime deterrent from so called ‘common sense gun laws’. This is all, to borrow a phrase from President Obama, “Hokie Doke”. The long term goal is total disarmament of the ‘law abiding’. Where does that leave you?

      1. Yeah, Janek, why are the governments so good at controlling the already law abiding people and criminals get away Scott free? The various governments seem to only catch the stupid criminals, and then those criminals get better housing, dental and medical care, and more observation of their Rights than we do.

    12. Our Corrupt Government and our criminal leaders will do nothing to her or anyone who participated in this violation of Federal Law. In fact as usual they will be exonerated of any wrong doing in the end. They are Demon-crats and that is all the protection they need. Just like Hill-o-sh*t they are untouchable.

    13. Soechtig’s statement and video constitute a “spontaneous utterance,” admissible as self-incriminating evidence before the administration of the Miranda warning. Therefore, she provided the – ahem! – ammunition for her own indictment.

    14. She’s probably not in any trouble, because she lied about the whole thing. Either that, or she knows the DOJ won’t do anything to bring down one of their own, being anti-gun. Why would they chose to enforce this law? They just want to pass new ones restricting law abiding citizens of their rights.

    15. Selective enforcement of the law is SOP for Lefties.

      Just try to video Planned Parenthood ghouls agreeing to sell aborted-baby body-parts and see what happens to you.

    16. Calling Katie Curic a journalist is like claiming Hillary Clinton is a surgeon. That dog just won’t hunt. But also this so called director is on the same level as “Birth g a nation”. The bigotry is the same

    17. The anti2ndamendment gun grabber ing satan wor shippers will stop at nothing. In deceiving as ell as outright lying America in trying to achieve the total destruction of our freedoms and total disarmament. On their way to total power . Who’s funding all these anti gun rights propaganda productions? It’s all communist driven with help from the traitorous devilcrat party that’s dreaming of absolnte control and power in America !

    18. As the statute plainly states, the transfer is illegal only if the *seller* “knows or has reasonable cause to believe” the buyer is from out of state. The problem, of course, is that standard – along with the background check loophole it accommodates – is ridiculously lax; it openly invites transfers to disqualified parties by encouraging sellers not to confirm the identities of the buyers. I presume that was what the show was attempting to demonstrate, and apparently they succeeded. The whole point is that that transaction *is legal* as long as the seller *does not ask* about the buyer’s credentials.

      As for the transfer of weapons across state lines, you have no evidence they did that. If they turned the weapons over to a firearms dealer in the state of purchase and had them shipped to a license-holder in their home state, that again would be legal. And I presume they could just have sold or given the weapons to someone in-state before returning home (without checking that person’s ID, of course!), or had them destroyed. So there are several options for legally handling the weapons they legally purchased through the background-check loophole. If they did take them across state lines, that would be illegal, but you are only presuming they did that.

      1. Nope.

        If they took physical possession of the firearm at the time they paid the seller, the buyer violated 18 USC 922(5). That is the only way the purchase could have happened entirely without a background check as she claimed in the video.

        If they arranged to handle the sale of the rifle via a dealer in Arizona (per BATFE this is a so-called “Local Transfer” to an out-of-state resident), then the dealer must first record the gun in their Acquisition and Disposition Record, then transfer the firearm to the out-of-state party on Form 4473, following completion of the NICS background check.

        As for the pistols, they could arrange to have an Arizona dealer send them to Colorado, but then to actually take possession in Colorado the licensee there would must first record the gun in their Acquisition and Disposition Record, then transfer the firearm on Form 4473, following completion of the NICS background check.

        Thus, there is no way for an out-of-state resident to buy a firearm in another state or from a nonlicensee in another state, without involving at least one licensee and one background check.

        So she either lied in the interview or she was party to a federal crime.

      2. Kevin, it is not a loophole. Congress debated it and specifically intended that people could sell, give, and transfer firearms from their private collections, without having the burden of having to do a background check. Calling Congress’ intent a loop hole is deceitful.

        1. I whole heartily concur. It’s not a loop hole. Congress intended to have this exemption. Those who call it a loop hole are deceitful or ignorant.

      3. This is exactly where state law comes into effect, here in NH state law is in order to sell any gun privately you must reasonably know the person you are selling to and that they are eligible to own. This is by knowing them personally or with proper identification and asking if they are a felon. Most private sellers here go the extra mile and ask for both a NH id either drivers license or photo id with perm address and a CCW permit showing they are eligible to own a firearm. Simple, effective but cleans up that “does not ask” area!!

      4. such are existing laws, ALL of which are contrary to the language and intent of that Second Article of Ammendment.

        The pooint here is that the whiney pants anti gun video producers broke existing federal laws in an attempt to prove a point that is, at root, false. And they did it to further their campaign to impose MORE laws that will as easily be broken as these were, and will face no consequences for their blatant flaunting of the existing (unconstitutinal) laws.

      5. no, the cited statue makes the transfer prohibited. It only provides for criminal sanctions when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, that the receiver is not a resident of the state where the transfer takes place. It also imposes criminal penalties on the purchaser…. who KNOWS he is not a resident of the state where the transfer takes place.
        The language is almost identical to the statue prohibiting transfer to “Prohibited persons” (those not lawfully able to be in possession of any firearm). If the seller knows the buyer is a convicted felon, he IS liable to charges for the sale. If he asks “are you lawfully able to be in possession of this gun” and the guy says YES, seller has no cause to believe otherwise, and is not liable. Howeve,r the buyer knows he is a felon and cannot possess the gun so he is liable regardless of the seller’s culpability.

        I believe the admission of this dirtbag producer was that her guys bought the weapons out of state and brought them home… and in any case, the instant money and item changed hands in a state where the one getting the gun is not a resident, the violation occurred on the part of the purchaser. Unless seller demanded government ID and saw they were from out of state and proceeded regardless, he is in the clear. The buyers are liable, though…..

    19. Obama’s DOJ will not prosecute them for buying handguns in another state. Just like they don’t prosecute prohibited persons who attempt to purchase handguns. These type of prosecutions do not benefit their agenda. As long it does not suit their agenda they will not give a rats azz.

      I wish I could go to Nevada or Arizona to get what I can’t get in California, but I can’t because it illegal. This goes to show you that these laws only effect law abiding citizens.

      Wild Bill is correct to comment that the GCA of ’68 is a sham. Imported from the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis. The GCA should be abolished in it’s entirety because it’s an infringement.

    20. I’m curious to know what motivated the producers to send their buyer to a neighboring state to make the purchases? Seems like it would not have been all that difficult to find a seller and a Wendy’s parking lot in Colorado ….

      1. Colorado passed UBCs two years ago. Interestingly only 4% of yearly NICS checks since can be shown to have come from private sellers, not the 4% all leftists from Obama on down touted as stemming from the “Gunshow Loophole”.

      2. the point the film was trying to make is that anyone can buy a gun interstate no problem. Remember the Clinton Unit claiming that Vermont (convenietnly the home state of her near rival) is the source of some eighty percent of illegal guns found related to crimes in New York City. (someone had the chutzpah to actually check statistics, and found that per federal records Vermont is near the bottom of the list of sources for “crime guns” in NYC. But then, would anyone expect truth from Hitlery?

    21. It’s “the Robin Hood” way of thinking…….evil done for good reason is not evil, it’s noble and to be admired!

      Freaking A-holes and their do-gooder crapsense will undermine the Constitution and the Greatest Nation civilization has ever seen for their 15 seconds of fame.

    22. You folks hit one out of the park!!
      Let me add to the festivities, if I may.

      In her interview Ms. Soechtig gave on TheLip.TV’s “Bring Your Own Doc” webcast in February 2016 she said:

      “Anything in there was news to me. So I didn’t know that… We sent a producer out and he was from Colorado, he went to Arizona and he was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols without a background check, in a matter of four hours. And that is perfectly legal. He wasn’t doing some sort of underground market.”

      The unnamed producer is probably Mr. Joshua A. Kunau, of Denver, CO, who is listed at IMDB.com as one of the film’s producers. Mr. Kunau’s biography at omggmo.com (another film he co-produced) states “Josh studied law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, and after working as an attorney for a few years in Colorado…” so Mr. Kunau appears to be attorney and thus is well versed in the law. His phone number if available on the web.

      So, we have a “spontaneous utterance” by Ms. Soechtig in which she admits to conspiracy to violate federal and state firearms laws. It appears one of her co-conspirators is a lawyer, who lives and practices in Colorado. Thus, we have knowing violations of federal law.

      Will BAFTE be fast and furious in their investigation of an anti-gun elitist progressive Caucasian female and the possible anti-gun elitist progressive Caucasian male lawyer who did these crimes?

      You betchya.

      Gents, again, you did one hell of a good job of investigative journalism.

    23. The tone and inflection speak volumes. They spoke of the Bushmaster as if it were some kind of new and awful machine gun just now coming to American citizens. They didn’t mention that it’s been available to private citizens for 60 years; that it’s only an ordinary rifle; that it’s ergonomically designed for comfort and convenience; that it’s the most popular rifle in this nation; that four million have bought it for hunting and self defense. Perhaps they believe omitting facts isn’t lying.

    24. F.Y.I. Since Ms. Soechtie apparently was not the person who illegally purchased and transported the handguns, I would think that she is not herself in violation of the Federal Firearms act. What I do believe is that she has engaged in a conspiracy to violate the FFA. Criminal Conspiracy may entail a much longer prison sentence. Further, if she provided the money to the person who violated the FFA, knowing that that person was not purchasing the firearms for himself, then she engaged in a straw purchase. One could even see something like this being looked at under Recco. And, then there are the various State Laws she helped violate. If she ever had custody of the firearms,….. Well, even more violations.

    25. No …… No one should go to jail for selling guns privately ….. ever ….. even people I do not like should not be subject to the incarceration witch hunt that occurs constantly in #AmericaPrisonWorld. 99guspuppet

      1. Well, officer… report it! And we will, too! Maybe if enough of us report it those … people… will do something!

    26. This bitch better hope that I don’t win the lottery, because I’ll spend every dime of it to make sure that her conniving low life ass becomes Bubba’s punk in prison. She will be begging for a gun or razor blade to end her worthless ass!! Sorry but I can’t stand rich low life’s that think they can get away with anything!! SHE SHOULD BE CHARGED‼️

      1. Instead of a razor…a piece of dried bamboo that’s nice and dry. Should make the cutting that much more “interesting”. A gun? Why no….she’s a felon and it would be illegal…;)

    27. The minutiae is somewhat confusing. I doubt the seller possesses a FFL and does business in a Wendy’s parking lot. And did all the firearms come from the same seller? If so, why did it take them 4 hours; that seems like an awfully long time. One thing that is crystal clear that no one has yet mentioned was the straw purchase. He did not purchase them for his own private use, rather he bought them for someone else. I believe that is for sure a violation of federal law. Please do correct .e if I am wrong. Regardless, an outstanding piece of investigating journalism by AMMOLAND!

      1. Amen, lets just hope something happens because of it. I mean they are the ones that said, see something say something, well there you are MR Federal Government ! Seen and Said!


      1. I don’t believe that those political low life’s in Washington DC have grasp yet, that how pissed off the law abiding citizen is, there are millions at the end of their rope.

    29. a bushmaster, one of those automatic ones? what a fool… the fact that she says its perfectly legal just goes to show they have no idea what they are talking about

    30. She claims the Bushmaster is an automatic , charge her under unlawful machine gun possession under NFA laws. If they don’t every lawyer will ask to overturn every illegal purchase.

      1. I doubt if she has the slightest idea of what ‘single shot’, ‘semi-auto’ and ‘full auto’ mean…or how they operate.

    31. If they don’t spend some serious time making little rocks out of big rocks…then the whole BATF is a sham…along with all our “gun-laws”. IF our current gun laws were upheld…the “problems” that legal gun owners face…would be far fewer.

      1. Actually Frogg, they violated NO law(s)… To be precise, they violated unconstitutional “codes”. USC “Codes” that directly and unconstitutionally “chill” the “free and unencumbered” exercise of a “secured right” that is guaranteed to the people by the U.S. Constitution – the Supreme “Law”. Article VI, Clause 2, (the Supremacy Clause) ensures this and it is confirmed by Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 which states that: ‘NO provision of the U.S. Constitution is designed to be without effect, and that anything (rule, regulation, etc.) that is in conflict or supersedes its guarantees is null and void.’ We’ve all been indoctrinated to believe that everything that the legislative and the executive branches enact and even bureaucratic dictate is binding law. They are NOT. If it violates a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it is NOT law.

        1. Wouldn’t it be terrific if Couric and her fellow conspirators had to use the “GCA is unconstitutional” defense to stay out of jail. How ironic they start out to achieve more gun control by deceitful means and end up getting rid of the GCA as an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment. What a dream come true that would be.

    32. You all are blowing in the wind. bo’s administration has the poorest record of enforcing present firearm laws why would you even remotely think they would do anything about this?

    33. Duly outraged US gun-owner might go to the ATF Hotline (https://www.atf.gov/contact/atf-tips) and post the following or similiarly worded Firearms Violation Tip:

      “Katie Couric and Stephanie Soechtig (and likely others) involved in producing the film Under The Gun apparently violated existing Federal law which states it is unlawful for any person to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the state in which the transferor resides. (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5).) Thus, by asking a private party in Arizona to sell the Colorado producer firearms, Ms. Soechtig and her staff induced an otherwise law abiding citizen to commit a federal crime.
      In February, The Lip TV interviewed the film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, prior to the film’s release. During this interview, Ms. Soechtig openly discussed how she sent a producer of the film (most likely producer and LAWYER Joshua A. Kunau), who resides in Colorado, to Arizona to purchase firearms (including three pistols) privately. [original video marker 1.27]

      According to Ms. Soechtig, the producer met a private seller in a parking lot of a local Wendy’s, and in less than four hours and without a background check, obtained a Bushmaster rifle and three handguns.
      (The Lip TV link https:// youtu.be/DSHJSfHsvmw )

      It is likely these firearms were transferred back to Colorado. If not if they were disposed of in Arizona or other states, further illegal violations were incurred.

      The lawful gun-owners of the United States will be watching to see what actions you take regarding this.”

    34. When did this all come about? I Well remember the “contiguous State” rule allowing residents of any State to purchase long guns in a State with a border contiguous to theirs.

    35. Illegal acts involving liberals is like black folks and racism…..Only liberals are free from breaking any laws no matter what they do and non-liberals are always guilty no matter what they do, just like blacks can’t be racist and all whites are racist simply because they are white. These people will never even be charged, much less prosecuted. The liberal government protects it’s liberal supporters. Obama is an illegal, liberal president, and it’s trickle-down politics from the original source. Follow the leader and do as he does.

    36. I believe 1992, with the passage of the “Brady Bill”.
      You still can purchase a firearm outside of your state of residence, IF:
      (1) The firearm is a rifle or shotgun (but not a handgun or “other” like a stripped AR receiver);
      (2) There is compliance with all laws of the state where the purchase occurs (some restrict buying and selling to contiguous states, some have different ID requirements);
      (3) There is compliance with all laws of your state where the purchase occurs (some restrict buying and selling to contiguous states, some have different ID requirements);
      (4) The purchase occurs at a federally licensed firearms dealer, importer, or manufacturer;
      (5) The buyer and dealer complete Form 4473, and the buyer provides the required form(s) of identification; and
      (6) There is a background check by the National Instant Check System (NICS) or a state run NICS-equivalent system
      (7) That background check is returned “approved” or where five full business days pass with no further response from NICS of a check initially returned as “delayed.”

      The firearms purchases described by Soechtig fails:
      (1) in that three were handguns,
      (3) there was no background check done (Colorado is a Universal Background Check state) and the Bushmaster has a standard capacity magazine capable of holding > 30 rounds (in Colorado to possess a magazine > 15 rounds it must have been in Colorado prior to 2013
      (4) the four sales were not at licensed firearms dealers
      (5) since there was no dealer, no valid 4473 was completed (only FFL holders can complete the 4473)
      (6) There was no background check run, because there was no FFL involvement (only FFLs can request NICS checks); and
      (7) There was no background check returned.

    37. Why couldn’t we as law-abiding citizens arrest these bit*ches ourselves ? I realize that the legalities of a ‘citizens arrest’ vary from state to state but I think that’s the only way justice will be served. We witnessed by a confession as to the federal felonies committed by omission by these women,and it’s our duty to see they pay for these crimes. If any of us would had committed these crimes we already would be in jail probably held without bond. The federal government like the liberal socialists,are working in unison to destroy our 2A rights and make criminals out of us by any means possible. I still love the United States of America,but I wouldn’t cross the street for our federal government !

    38. … it really makes you wonder why there has been a constant number of shootings with the media harping about it day & night, & the politicians demands for more “gun control” that follows right after… they use the same tactics that dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, Bill & Hillary Clinton, etc. use to maintain their power base over the people… time to wake up America & see these despots for who they really are & stand up for your constitutional rights…!!!

    39. Is their anybody from Ammoland or Congress that will be making sure this doesn’t get swept under the rug???

      1. No Brandon, it up to us to keep up pressure on those federal bureaucrats ( because it was federal law violated) that have been given the authority to investigate and arrest (special agents, supervisory special agents, special agents in charge); prosecute (Assistant US Attorneys; US Attorneys [the supervisors], and the Attorney General of the US).

        1. Wild Bill….keep in touch with me if you see anything new happen. I want to keep this out in the open as much as possible and not let it die till we see justice!

    40. Time for someone’s butt to be in prison for a long time. Freely given confession should be enough to arrest and confine or is there another standard for liberals who break the law!

    41. Of coarse there is a different standard. She/they have the right genitalia, party affiliation and employer to say and do what ever they want. To them the end justifies the means, and our Government, both parties, supports them.

    42. Perfectly illustrates Madison’s comments:
      “It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”
      — James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788

    43. One of you should start a petition, the anti gun people use this link, to start a petition. write it up like you are concerned about the gun laws being broken, go after these liars. put all the facts in, not the drama, just “broke this law and that law, put the producer name in it,, demand the DOJ go after her. Leave the DRAMA out of it.

      after you start the petition, put th link up here and we can all sign it.


    44. Dear Friends,

      I just added the petition: “ENFORCE GUN LAWS”

      It would mean a lot to me if you took a moment to add your name because:


      Real change happens when everyday people like you and me come together and stand up for what we believe in. Together, we can reach tons of people and help create change around this important issue.

      After you’ve signed the petition please also take a moment to share it with others. It’s super easy – all you need to do is forward this email.

      Thank you!

      1. The only problem with your suggestion and the petition KF is that every “gun law” on the books is unconstitutional except for the ones that prohibit shooting people that are not threatening you or someone else. I just can’t grasp what most people don’t understand about Article VI, Clause 2 and the Second Amendment’s (2A) guarantee. In 2A, the Founders did NOT specify that there were certain “arms” that can be prohibited by government(s), therefore every “arm” is protected and are therefore OUR right to keep (own) and bear (carry). And since something can’t be un-invented, 2A applies to ALL “arms”. This is because they (the Founders) sought to establish “arms equality” between the people and those that govern them. That was/is the best way to discourage tyranny. As for Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause), this forbids both the States’ and the Federal governments from encroaching on the people’s rights that are secured by the Constitution. And because the SCOTUS finally got it right and recognized with its Heller decision that 2A is a “fundamental right”, government(s) can not infringe upon it in any way. This makes ALL previously enacted “gun laws”, every one of them, unconstitutional. As for licensing (permit) requirements, the SCOTUS has also ruled on this. Murdock v. Pennsylvania clearly states that: ‘Government(s) can NOT convert a right secured by the Constitution into a privilege and then force the people to acquire (purchase) a license (permit) in order to exercise that right. This is because doing so would inevitably “chill” that right.

    45. The media has gotten away with reporting oninion instead of fact for so long they think it falls under Freedon of the Press! Wrong, opinion is not press. Jail thier but.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *