Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,901 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:04 PM Mar 2013

Gun shop blocks Mark Kelly’s right to buy AR-15, citing political ‘intent’



The owner of a gun shop in Tucson, Arizona on Monday refused to hand over an AR-15 military-style rifle that Mark Kelly purchased in order to demonstrate how easy it was to obtain assault weapons.

In a statement posted to Facebook, Diamondback Police Supply owner Doug MacKinlay said that he was blocking the former astronaut’s Second Amendment right because he questioned the political “intent” behind the purchase.

Diamondback Police Supply
22 hours ago
Statement of Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply Co., Inc.

“While I support and respect Mark Kelly’s 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons other then for his personal use. In light of this fact, I determined that it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store to complete the Federal From 4473 and NICS background check required of Mr. Kelly before he could take possession this firearm. A full refund was sent to Mr. Kelly, via express mail, on Thursday of last week.

The Sig Sauer rifle will be donated to the Arizona Tactical Officers Association where it will be raffled off to generate funds the association can use to purchase much needed tactical equipment for the organization’s members. The A.T.O. A. represents the SWAT and Special Response officers of the state’s law enforcement community who regularly place their lives on the line to protect the residents of this state.

Additionally, Diamondback Police Supply will make a $1295.00 contribution (the selling price of the M400 rifle) to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program that teaches children, in pre-K through 3rd grade, four important steps to take if they find a gun. The emphasis of the program is on child safety, something that is important to all of us and at the core of the current debate on gun control,” stated Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply Co., Inc.


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Diamondback-Police-Supply/143341839017998

Kelly, who is the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), said that he had purchased the rifle to show how easy it was to pass a background check. The effort was part of his push for more gun control in response to his wife’s shooting and other recent mass shootings.

A weapon similar to the Sig Sauer M400 was used last year to gun down 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut.

..............

more:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/26/gun-shop-blocks-mark-kellys-right-to-buy-ar-15-citing-political-intent/
58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gun shop blocks Mark Kelly’s right to buy AR-15, citing political ‘intent’ (Original Post) kpete Mar 2013 OP
Huh? No matter the he has no right to own an AR-15 unless he is part of a well regulated militia.. bowens43 Mar 2013 #1
He is a part of a well regulated militia sarisataka Mar 2013 #4
I guess the government can't regulate guns, but some POS store owner in Tuscon can... joeybee12 Mar 2013 #2
Look at it this way. The USA has pharmacists that won't R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #6
You cannot deny someone their 2nd amendment rights based on political intent. Rex Mar 2013 #3
The gun shop owner has the right to do business with whomever he chooses as long as it is Purveyor Mar 2013 #5
Isn't it discrimination on political grounds? R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #13
You or anyone else is free to discriminate on political grounds. former9thward Mar 2013 #14
Do you have any court rulings that go with that? R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #21
This is a link to a law blog for employers. former9thward Mar 2013 #22
TY. Any form of discrimination anywhere should not be allowable. R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #24
Our society discriminates all the time between criminals that should be locked up and innocent AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #53
Sure you can. Xithras Mar 2013 #7
Okay thanks, I had it backwards then. Rex Mar 2013 #8
"gun control advocate" is not a protected class cthulu2016 Mar 2013 #9
But the transaction already went through or so I thought. Rex Mar 2013 #10
You *can*, but you look like a hypocrite doing it. nt Robb Mar 2013 #11
Well at least this keeps the issue in the news. Rex Mar 2013 #12
After it became known that Kelly purchased this weapon ... former9thward Mar 2013 #15
Bullshit. Cite the law. Robb Mar 2013 #17
Destroying weapons is not buying them with the intent of turning them over to a 3rd party. former9thward Mar 2013 #18
He was purchasing it for himself. To use it. cthulu2016 Mar 2013 #19
No, that is not what he said. former9thward Mar 2013 #20
Well, if he announced a different intent later... Orsino Mar 2013 #25
Delusional paranoia. Robb Mar 2013 #26
I cited the law which is what you requested. former9thward Mar 2013 #32
For the validity of your interpretation, you might have cited the food pyramid. Robb Mar 2013 #33
The gun shop owner knew he was being set up. former9thward Mar 2013 #36
Laughable. Look up "prohibited person." Robb Mar 2013 #38
That is not what Form 4473 says. former9thward Mar 2013 #39
Completely incorrect. Good lord. Robb Mar 2013 #42
Do I think given the facts we know that Kelly would be indicted or convicted? former9thward Mar 2013 #45
If you can't even *define* "straw purchase" correctly, you shouldn't be selling guns. Robb Mar 2013 #46
From what I have read, AZ law says you can legally louis-t Mar 2013 #28
BS. It doesn't matter what AZ law says, straw purchases .... oldhippie Mar 2013 #30
Then why would the AZ US Attorney not allow the ATF to arrest louis-t Mar 2013 #47
The AZ US Attorney has what .... oldhippie Mar 2013 #49
Stating that I will do A does not deny my intent to do B, LanternWaste Mar 2013 #34
Seems like the ones who scream the loudest about gun rights... cynatnite Mar 2013 #16
Doesn't make sense treestar Mar 2013 #23
That is a "straw purchase" tularetom Mar 2013 #27
Not in AZ. The law there says you can buy for personal use, then louis-t Mar 2013 #29
Tell me again how Arizona law trumps Federal law ....... oldhippie Mar 2013 #31
Sorry, it was actually the Fortune Magazine article. louis-t Mar 2013 #48
Sorry, I have read none of the magazine articles .... oldhippie Mar 2013 #50
I'm back. Here's one of the links: louis-t Mar 2013 #51
Again, why does a US Attorney cite or care about AZ law? oldhippie Mar 2013 #54
I am not saying AZ laws trump federal laws. louis-t Mar 2013 #57
So why do you think ..... oldhippie Mar 2013 #58
How in hell can this be twisted in any way to be a straw purchase? baldguy Mar 2013 #40
Pretty easy, actually ..... oldhippie Mar 2013 #52
That's been answered above in this very thread: baldguy Mar 2013 #55
That's case law, not US Code ...... oldhippie Mar 2013 #56
Isint buying a gun with the intent to give it to a 3rd party textbook straw purchase? davepc Mar 2013 #35
Why don't you go and find out what a straw purchase actually is, and get back to us. baldguy Mar 2013 #43
Now if only he can do the same for the next "responsible" gun owner Rajesh Mar 2013 #37
So what about the pistol? Clames Mar 2013 #41
They just rooked him out of a great resale. ileus Mar 2013 #44
 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
1. Huh? No matter the he has no right to own an AR-15 unless he is part of a well regulated militia..
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:07 PM
Mar 2013

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
4. He is a part of a well regulated militia
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:16 PM
Mar 2013

as a retired navy Captain, he would be a member of the retired reserve and is subject to recall to duty until the age of 60 IIRC

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
2. I guess the government can't regulate guns, but some POS store owner in Tuscon can...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:09 PM
Mar 2013

Yeah, that was the founders intent.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
6. Look at it this way. The USA has pharmacists that won't
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:21 PM
Mar 2013

fork over emergency birth control to women: which is a violation of their basic human rights. Nowhere does it say in the constitution that I can discriminate against you regardless of age, sex or religion, but the Illinois Supreme Court can.

We have laws that are supposed to protect We The People from this kind of horseshit and misogyny, but it still happens with the court's decision.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/24/pro-life-pharmacists-win-huge-victory-in-illinois-decision/

Now put it into wider perspective. A gun shop owner can discriminate against somebody for political reasons, i.e. they are a dirty LibRul Obamee voter, and get away with it.

I'm not for the proliferation of guns in the USA. There are already too many in circulation. This, if let to stand, would set a dangerous precedent where only Gawrd-fearing GOP supporters could own a firearm.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
3. You cannot deny someone their 2nd amendment rights based on political intent.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:10 PM
Mar 2013

The gun shop owner screwed up.

 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
5. The gun shop owner has the right to do business with whomever he chooses as long as it is
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:17 PM
Mar 2013

not discriminatory.

Not supporting the shops decision but that is just the way it is.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
13. Isn't it discrimination on political grounds?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:26 PM
Mar 2013

What if you walked into the shop wearing an Obama t-shirt, while I had a rMoney t-shirt on?

Who do you believe that he will deny service to under the guise of "political intent", and would it then be legal?

Women have been denied emergency contraception on religious grounds, which IMHO isn't legal, so where does the discrimination stop?

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
14. You or anyone else is free to discriminate on political grounds.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:33 PM
Mar 2013

The 2nd A is a restriction on government not private business. Nothing in federal or state law prohibits discrimination based on politics.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
21. Do you have any court rulings that go with that?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:42 PM
Mar 2013

To deny somebody based on their political views s just as heinous as denying it on their religious ones.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
22. This is a link to a law blog for employers.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:02 PM
Mar 2013

It points out exceptions to the general principle. Some states and localities, such as DC, have made political discrimination illegal but most have not.

http://about.bloomberglaw.com/practitioner-contributions/the-eighth-circuit-differentiates-between/

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
53. Our society discriminates all the time between criminals that should be locked up and innocent
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:42 PM
Mar 2013

people who should not be.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
7. Sure you can.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:21 PM
Mar 2013

So long as they're not violating federal antidiscrimination laws (race,, religion, national origin, etc), no business is required to sell anything to anybody. There are only a handful of states (5 or 6 I think) with laws that protect political affiliation from discrimination in business. Only two do so explicitly, and but there are a few others (like California) that simply put blanket bans on discrimination of any sort.

Arizona is not one of those states.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
8. Okay thanks, I had it backwards then.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:23 PM
Mar 2013

I thought most states had laws that protect against political discrimination.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
9. "gun control advocate" is not a protected class
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:23 PM
Mar 2013

The gun store can not discriminate against a purchaser for being in a class of people identified in federal civil rights laws, but outside the specific scope of such laws the gun shop is not the government, and thus is not bound to honor anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.

If you owned a print shop you would be free, for example, to decline to print pro-gun fliers a customer wanted. That would not be a violation of the customer's 1st Amendment rights.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
10. But the transaction already went through or so I thought.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:24 PM
Mar 2013

Plus I was wrong and thought most states had laws to protect against political discrimination. I see it is just the opposite of what I thought and most don't.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
15. After it became known that Kelly purchased this weapon ...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:37 PM
Mar 2013

He claimed he was going to turn it over to the police. That makes him a 'straw' purchaser which is a felony. The gun shop acted properly.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
17. Bullshit. Cite the law.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:43 PM
Mar 2013

I'm allowed to destroy all the firearms I care to. And that's what turning them in is.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
18. Destroying weapons is not buying them with the intent of turning them over to a 3rd party.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:57 PM
Mar 2013

But you asked for the law

First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) prohibits any person:


In connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition.

Subject to limited exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) imposes criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, upon any person who:


Knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by [federal firearms law] to be kept in the records of a person licensed under [federal firearms law] or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of [federal firearms law].


Kelly knowingly made a false statement to the FFL dealer on form 4473. He said he was buying the gun for himself. If I was a gun shop owner I would not touch this with a 10 foot pole either.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
19. He was purchasing it for himself. To use it.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:03 PM
Mar 2013

And his use (as a political prop) was a legal use.

I agree that the gun store does not HAVE TO complete the transaction, as a matter of the gun seller's choice. He is allowed to discriminate in this case.

But to suggest that any law mandates or even suggests that he should do so that is wrong.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
20. No, that is not what he said.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:09 PM
Mar 2013

He said he was going to turn it over to the police. That means a false statement was made on form 4473. The gun shop owner was being set up. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/markkelly.asp

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
25. Well, if he announced a different intent later...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:13 PM
Mar 2013

...that doesn't automatically make his first statement on paper false.

However, the seller seems only to have objected to the political leanings that happened to differ from his own.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
32. I cited the law which is what you requested.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:19 PM
Mar 2013

I notice you ignored that. And just went to name calling which is all you have.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
33. For the validity of your interpretation, you might have cited the food pyramid.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:22 PM
Mar 2013

Are you self-identifying as a paranoid NRA gun nut, just like the shop owner?

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
36. The gun shop owner knew he was being set up.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:27 PM
Mar 2013

He would have been accused of knowingly selling to a straw purchaser. Not even a close call.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
38. Laughable. Look up "prohibited person."
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:43 PM
Mar 2013

Or do you suspect the police department would be unable to pass the required federal background check?

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
39. That is not what Form 4473 says.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:50 PM
Mar 2013

He stated under oath he was buying the firearm for himself. Just because later on, when he was caught, he suddenly says the "police" when he is not under oath means nothing. He could say prohibited person Joe Smith two minutes later. Once it is known he was lying on Form 4473 then he could be planning on selling it a prohibited person. Again not a close call at all for the gun shop owner.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
42. Completely incorrect. Good lord.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:12 PM
Mar 2013

Form 4473 is a federal construct, so federal law rules. And federal law forbids gun buyers from making false statements "likely to deceive with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale."

So sure, you could say this reads like a straw purchase. But there's a legal requirement that evidence could be introduced that a prohibited person ended up with a gun. In other words, he might be lying on the form, but not materially.

Don't believe me, read US v Polk: "If the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability under a ‘straw purchase’ theory does not attach." or US v Ortiz: "Straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser ... uses a lawful 'straw man' purchaser ... to obtain a firearm."

And this is, as noted elsewhere, why ATF agents are frequently hampered in attempts to prosecute straw purchasers.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
45. Do I think given the facts we know that Kelly would be indicted or convicted?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:28 PM
Mar 2013

No. Do I think given the facts we know that the gun shop owner would be indicted or convicted? No. But when you realize that a customer is playing games with you then you better play safe especially when your business is under increased scrutiny. If you have to look up SC decisions to see if your actions are justified it is time to take another path.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
46. If you can't even *define* "straw purchase" correctly, you shouldn't be selling guns.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:32 PM
Mar 2013

This is not complicated.

louis-t

(23,199 posts)
28. From what I have read, AZ law says you can legally
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:37 PM
Mar 2013

"change your mind" after walking out of the store and sell to anyone you want. This is why the ATF couldn't arrest the straw buyers that were selling to smugglers. That's what Fast and Furious was all about. It all depends on when he said he was going to turn it over to police.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
30. BS. It doesn't matter what AZ law says, straw purchases ....
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:49 PM
Mar 2013

... are Federal Law.

The store owner was right to get himself out of a potential setup. There have been a lot of FFLs that have been abused for lesser causes.

louis-t

(23,199 posts)
47. Then why would the AZ US Attorney not allow the ATF to arrest
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:03 PM
Mar 2013

straw purchasers? They know who is doing it, they had a list and presented it to the US Attorney. Read up on Fast and Furious. More important, read the Esquire article on Fast and Furious.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
49. The AZ US Attorney has what ....
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:22 PM
Mar 2013

.... to do with Arizona law? You know, he kinda works for the Federal DOJ?

I guess you don't know. Go back and review Civics 101 and reread that Fast and Furious thing and get back with us.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
34. Stating that I will do A does not deny my intent to do B,
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:23 PM
Mar 2013

Stating that I will do A does not deny my intent to do B, regardless of whether B is stated or not... unless one is an idiot-- and idiots may of course use any logical fallacy they wish to self-better validate their "win"

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
16. Seems like the ones who scream the loudest about gun rights...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:37 PM
Mar 2013

are also the ones who have no problem denying law-abiding Americans a gun.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
23. Doesn't make sense
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:11 PM
Mar 2013

Is there an ordinance that says that to sell the gun, it has to be for "personal use?" And then Kelly's use would still be "personal."

louis-t

(23,199 posts)
29. Not in AZ. The law there says you can buy for personal use, then
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:40 PM
Mar 2013

change your mind and sell to someone else. You can buy 100 guns, as long as you say they are for personal use, then change your mind and legally sell to someone else. This is why the ATF couldn't arrest straw buyers in AZ and why Fast and Furious failed.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
31. Tell me again how Arizona law trumps Federal law .......
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:54 PM
Mar 2013

...... regarding straw buyers. Care to cite that story?
ATF didn't arrest the straw buyers in AZ because they were doing what they (ATF) wanted. Do try to keep up.

louis-t

(23,199 posts)
48. Sorry, it was actually the Fortune Magazine article.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:21 PM
Mar 2013

You obviously have been reading the Forbes and Esquire articles, and believe all the screaming from the repukes. The accusations don't seem to make sense. Why would the ATF let guns 'walk' across the border when their job is to stop it from happening? They already knew hundreds of thousands of guns had been smuggled into Mexico. They knew who was doing it. Why not just make the arrests? Give me a motivation. Oh, I know, cuz they're evil bastards. Now prove it. You have a couple of shop owners who can't talk because of an investigation, and a couple of shop owners who don't want bad publicity so they blame the big, bad ATF. Really? The ATF came in and forced the poor gun shop owners to break the law and sell 100 guns to a guy who shouldn't have them and then let them walk across the border?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40539_Must_Read-_Fortune_Magazine_Totally_Destroys_the_Fast_and_Furious_Fake_Outrage

Sorry, this link is all I could find. It has a link to the Fortune story.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
50. Sorry, I have read none of the magazine articles ....
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:26 PM
Mar 2013

... but I am in a position to understand Federal Firearms Law. Everyone has their spin to put on F&F. I really have no interest in it at this time.

louis-t

(23,199 posts)
51. I'm back. Here's one of the links:
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:32 PM
Mar 2013
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/279133_A_Complete_Reversal_About_the_

"The reasons guns went walking from straw buyers may be a reluctance by prosecutors to arrest straw buyers in a pro gun state."

"I had the impression that Federal law forbids straw purchases strongly. Apparently that law is weak. If the following breakthrough article is correct anyway."

"Prosecutors: Transferring guns is legal in Arizona

This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley’s judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona. “Purchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful,” Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney’s then-criminal chief in Arizona would later write. “Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime.”

And, all the while, repugs keep complaining that the government doesn't "enforce the laws already on the books."
 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
54. Again, why does a US Attorney cite or care about AZ law?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:49 PM
Mar 2013

This continues to show you don't know what you are talking about. Whatever AZ laws allows or says about transfers is irrelevant to Federal charges.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it looks to me like the Ass't US attorney was trying to stop the enforcement, maybe by direction from the DOJ. I don't know, but it certainly wasn't because of anything in AZ law.

louis-t

(23,199 posts)
57. I am not saying AZ laws trump federal laws.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:42 PM
Mar 2013

It says federal prosecutors 'may have been reluctant to' charge anyone in a pro-gun state. It says the feds were saying it was legal to transfer weapons in AZ. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS AGAINST THE FEDERAL LAWS. What I don't agree with is the DOJ or the evil Obama purposely 'killed a bunch of people so'z he could come and take yer gunss away'. I would tend to side with the guys on the ground doing the grunt work rather than Darrell Issa, who never makes a statement or charge that isn't politically motivated, or any other right-wing whack job. I have a hard time believing the gun store owners who charge that they were 'forced to ignore the laws' by the evil gub-mint. They DO have a dog in this fight.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
58. So why do you think .....
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:19 PM
Mar 2013

... the federal prosecutor was "reluctant" to enforce federal law? Wouldn't you think that would be grounds for dismissal? Or at least investigation? Do we really want the federal prosecutors to decide what laws they enforce and which ones they don't? Maybe be "reluctant" to enforce banking fraud laws since "everybody does it?"

But, as I said, I don't really care. I don't have a dog in the fight. I respond only because it is a slow day on the internet.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
40. How in hell can this be twisted in any way to be a straw purchase?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:03 PM
Mar 2013

Mark Kelly is not buying it for anyone who is prohibited by law from doing so. There's no way this is a straw purchase, and you should be apologizing for claiming it is

I guess this is the latest talking point from the extremist terrorists at the NRA.

(And the thing is - if he WAS making a straw purchase, the gun shop would probably be OK with it. WHICH IS THE PROBLEM.)

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
52. Pretty easy, actually .....
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:38 PM
Mar 2013

"Mark Kelly is not buying it for anyone who is prohibited by law from doing so."

Doesn't matter. The crime is making the false statement on the 4473. It doesn't matter whether the third party is prohibited or not.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
55. That's been answered above in this very thread:
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:11 PM
Mar 2013

"If the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability under a ‘straw purchase’ theory does not attach."

"Straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser ... uses a lawful 'straw man' purchaser ... to obtain a firearm."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022568923#post42

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
56. That's case law, not US Code ......
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:17 PM
Mar 2013

The US Code is pretty clear. Granted, the case law (one judge's opinion) will probably prevail (until the next judge decides it doesn't.)

davepc

(3,936 posts)
35. Isint buying a gun with the intent to give it to a 3rd party textbook straw purchase?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:26 PM
Mar 2013

I can't blame the gun shop for not wanting to be a part of that.

 

Rajesh

(9 posts)
37. Now if only he can do the same for the next "responsible" gun owner
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:34 PM
Mar 2013

Good on you, gun shop owner!

Hopefully you'll also refrain from selling a gun to the next guy who leaves it unlocked and easily accessible to his psychopathic son, or to the robbers who will steal it and sell it on the street, or to the guy whose sole intention of purchasing the gun is to sell it on the street without any kind of background check, or to the paranoid, inexperienced wanker who will accidentally shoot his daughter when she unexpectedly comes home to visit late in the night, or to the parents of the short tempered, clingy girlfriend who shoots her lover in the head before stabbing him 27 times, or to the drunken asshole who fires into the air in celebratory gunfire only to kill an innocent a few blocks away, or to the bullied, depressed young man who has decided he isn't interested in living anymore.

This man is a hero.

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
41. So what about the pistol?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:12 PM
Mar 2013

It seems most here, in their fervor over the rifle, forgot that Mr. Kelly also purchased a semi-automatic handgun at the same time as the rifle.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
44. They just rooked him out of a great resale.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:21 PM
Mar 2013

I'd be super extra mad....Sig m400 on FB or your local trader times will net you 1500-2000 bucks.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun shop blocks Mark Kell...