CHICAGO – Chicago Sun-Times reporter Neil Steinberg set out to make a point about guns when he attempted to buy an “assault rifle” from a Des Plaines dealer, and he ended up making a fool of himself.

Steinberg penned an editorial for the Sun-Times last week about his attempt to purchase an assault rifle from Maxon Shooter’s Supplies and Indoor Range in Des Plaines, because the store refused to process the transaction because of his troubling history with violence and booze.

The column seemed to be an anti-gun commentary of sorts about purchasing an “assault rifle” following the June 12 Orlando night club massacre, though the intent or focus is elusive.

Steinberg described his nervousness driving from Chicago to Des Plaines to buy his “first assault rifle” – partly because journalistic stunt was “supporting an industry I despise” – before delving into the experience itself.

“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,” he wrote.

“I eyed the cases of weapons. Ooo. Big revolvers, matte steel. Despite the run on weaponry that happens after these shootings — Smith & Wesson stock went up 6.9 percent Monday — as gun fans guard against restrictions that never come, there were a few dozen assault rifles — a vague term, yes, I know — including a Sig Sauer like the one used in Orlando.”

Steinberg explained he went straight for the big guns, and was immediately met with the demand for a FOID card, or Firearm Owner’s Identification Card, required for a purchase.

“We talked barrel profiles,” Steinberg explained. “’Assault rifle’ is a misnomer. Despite what another clerk called the ‘black, evil-looking’ appearance of the guns, the only aspect relevant to the national debate is the ‘standard issue 30-round magazine’ which holds a nightclub-clearing 30 bullets. Eight states and the District of Columbia ban selling them. But not, of course, Florida. Or Illinois.

“’I’ll take it,’ I said.”

Steinberg weaved his missive with conversations about guns he’s had with friends and neighbors, presumably to make a point that guns are bad and some people don’t deserve to own them. He also droned on about people shooting themselves with guns and pre-schoolers getting their hands on them, and wrote that “I don’t plan on keeping this gun a second longer than I have to for this column.”

One gun store employee realized during Steinberg’s visit that he’s a journalist, and made it clear they’re not his favorite bunch but processed his purchase nonetheless. The two discussed Steinberg selling his “assault rifle” back to the store once he cleared a background check and mandatory 24 hour waiting period, and completed the transaction.

“A reporter in Philadelphia bought an assault rifle in seven minutes; 40 percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have no background checks. Here, I had paperwork. A federal form asking, was I an illegal alien? No. Was I a fugitive? Again no. Had I ever been convicted on charges of domestic abuse? No. Handed over my credit card: $842.50. Another $40 for the instructor to acquaint me with the gun the next day,” he wrote.

Unfortunately for Steinberg, the store canceled his transaction before he could get his hands on the weapon.

“At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? ‘I don’t have to tell you,’ she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn’t rejected by the government? No. So what is it? ‘I’m not at liberty,’ she said,” according to Steinberg.

“A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: ‘it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.’”

Steinberg dismissed the store’s reasoning, and wrote off the rejection as right-leaning gun shop owner with an ax to grind against the liberal media.

He wrote:

Now I’ll state what I believe the real reason is: Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark. Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that’s a different story. Gun makers avoid publicity because the truth is this: they sell tools of death to frightened people and make a fortune doing so. They shun attention because they know, if we saw clearly what is happening in our country, we’d demand change.

The blog “This Ain’t Hell” offered a different possible explanation: “Maybe the fine folks at Maxon don’t like their guns in the hands of mean drunks who beat their wives.”

The site highlighted a response to Steinberg’s column Maxon posted on its Facebook page, which provided some insight into the real reason Steinberg was turned away.

“Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive o the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. ‘Journalist’ is not a protected class, BTW,” the gun store posted. “We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple of links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of the same.

“He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no ‘We’ll see you in court!!!’ type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it?”