and help making Mark Kelly's point.

Douchebag

Some people are too stupid to live and this mackinlay seems to be one of them.
I'm not advocating harming anyone in case someone is ready to alert on me for what I wrote.

I am sure that some of Mackinlay's customers are making sham transactions for racketeers. Consider the location

I think that most people who have guns are good honest people but like they say it only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole barrel.

I figure that's the first cancel he's ever done probably.

for a variety of reasons.

Free publicity, all courtesy of a dumbass.

Didn't think of the consequences of his actions, quelle surpise!

just followed the law.

Donating to the NRA as part of it: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/tucson-gun-store-owner-halts-purchase-of-semiautomatic-rifle-by/article_b03f8fa3-4c9b-5b4d-be7c-18ec6e635b1c.html

Demand that U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R - Oklahoma) be prosecuted for buying a firearm for a convicted felon.

[link:http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/tag/straw-purchase/|

Sounds like he should get investigated and charged.

Who was he going to give the gun too after he bought it?

Just buying a fire arm to make a political point doesnt' count as a straw purchase. I think the buyer has to actually give the gun to someone who otherwise could not have obtained the fire arm.

Maybe I missed it. Where did Kelly say or suggest that he was going to give this gun to someone who shouldn't have it?

What made him grow a conscience all of a sudden??

Giving the weapon to the police is not the same as giving it to another citizen you bought it for. Not unless the PD decides to put it in their armory and use it.

but, Mark Kelly said it would be donated or whatever to the Tucson police. that's not a straw purchase is it?
wouldn't that be buying for another individual?

seems suspect.

The only people who can legally buy a gun with the purpose of transferring it to someone else is a licensed firearms dealer.

according to ATF.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/SHOT%20Show%202012/011912-detecting-avoiding-illegal-straw-purchases.pdf

I had thought that was one of those "illegal but we don't really care" things.

a straw purchase unless he purposefully bought the weapon on behalf of another person, at the other person's direction and using their money (or being reimbursed). This incident doesn't appear to be a straw purchase, so the store owner's story doesn't hold water.

But then I don't really believe Kelly's story that he intended to turn it in to police, either.

for a local republican politician.

Unless he has knowledge of criminal intent, he is interfering with Mr. Gifford's 2A Rights.

For an FFL license holder, the intent of the purchaser is certainly relevant to allowing the transaction to occur. If it was the purchasers intent to put his name on the form and then give the weapon to someone else, that could easily meet the standard for a straw purchase. Not saying that Kelly's intent met that standard, although he publicly stated that he was not going to keep the weapon, but clearly intent is a relative factor that FFL holders are supposed to consider when transferring a weapon. If

If they smell any irregularity, it's their right, and really their responsibility. His story didn't add up. So, that's fine.

However, in all probability the sale was probably denied because the store owner views Kelly as a political foe.
This was not a straw purchase. You can buy a gun and gift it to anyone without it being a straw purchase. You would have to know the recipient is ineligible, and you would have to be buying it ON THAT PERSON's BEHALF. meaning, they give you the money, you buy the gun, give them the gun.

Buying it and turning it in to a smelter, or the police, or another person as a gift isn't a straw purchase. Pretty sure the BATFE has issued statements to this effect as well.

That a person without a criminal record can buy a legal firearm? This is news?

Is it really necessary to "demonstrate" how easy it is to buy a legal product legally? Can he show us how easily he can buy 5 gallons of gasoline and a book of matches, too?

He ALREADY did the assault weapon thing when he bought the Glock and walked out of the store. That pistol is an assault weapon, so-defined. The rifle was just another thing, same classification of weapon. He already proved his point buying the same gun that was used to grievously wound his wife, and kill 6 other people at the Safeway.

Everyone knows this background check is all you need, plenty of media sources have already done it and already reported on it. So nothing to be gained here.

Handing it over to AZ police is a stupid assed thing to do because they are required to RESELL IT by state law. It wasn't used in a crime. It goes back on the market. They do not destroy it.

I don't believe a fucking word of it. I think he bought that rifle for himself, to keep. That said, it was his right to do so, and his privacy was violated when someone, possibly the store owner or an employee, took his picture and disseminated it to the internet. He has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that was violated.

I also wonder what the deal was with the waiting period. Did he just not want to take possession right away? Does AZ have some waiting period that other states don't have? WTF was that all about? I can walk into a store here in WA, put money on the counter, sign on the line, wait 15 minutes for the phone call, and walk out of the store with it. Why didn't he take it right away in AZ?

It doesn't help his credibility as a gun control advocate that his story makes ZERO logical sense, but he's not being treated fairly in the press either so... Fuck. Idunno. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, I know that.

That would be my guess, at least.

I guess I assumed it was used or directly for sale. I've never seen a gun store with a 'floor model' demonstration that wasn't directly for sale, but I suppose it's possible.

That would explain that part, why he didn't walk out of the store with it on day one.

To give the police time to determine it wasn't used in a crime.

Hard to tell the story changes so much from one news source to the next.

Doug MacKinlay said Monday that a full refund was sent to Mark Kelly via express mail because the former astronaut didn't plan to keep the AR-15-style rifle for his personal use.

And only repukes have rights.

The denial is clearly political/personal, I agree there. But the purported use/purpose of the buy doesn't make any sense either...

Dunno. It's a big emotional mess that a bunch of people are over-invested in. It's not helping the national discussion on gun control in either direction.

he let the sale go through and had a bunch of customers snapping pictures of Mr. Kelly taking delivery, it would have been a gun control pr nightmare.

And that's a problem because Kelly is entitled to his privacy as a private citizen.

You know, that whole security through obscurity thing that the anti-Registration freaks drone on and on about?
(I'm a gun owner, including a rifle like what he just tried to buy, and I would be perfectly fine registering them)

Is a bit of a collectable. I'm guessing it is worth 3 or 4 times it's actual retail value. Maybe more.

Peace