Gun store denies Mark Kellys rifle purchase, questions intent.

[powderman]

Gun store rescinds Mark Kelly's rifle purchase, questions his 'intent'  Published March 25, 2013
FoxNews.com     

•    March 6, 2013: Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords listens to her husband, Mark Kelly, during a return to the supermarket where she was wounded in a rampage two years ago in Tucson, Ariz. (AP)

A Tucson gun store owner has decided to rescind the sale of a military-style rifle to Mark Kelly, the husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, after Kelly said he had intended the purchase to make a political point about how easy it is to obtain the kind of firearms he's lobbying Congress to ban.
 
Kelly's March 5 purchase of an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber handgun at Diamondback Police Supply sparked a frenzy of reaction from both sides of the debate after he posted to Facebook a photo of himself shopping.
A background check took only a matter of minutes to complete, Kelly said in the Facebook post, adding that it's scary to think people can buy similar guns without background checks at gun shows or on the Internet.
 
But Kelly couldn't immediately take possession of the rifle because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime.
Store owner Doug MacKinlay said Monday in a Facebook post of his own that he "determined that was in my company's best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store."
"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," MacKinlay said in the statement.
 
He added that the store will return Kelly's money, donate the rifle to the Arizona Tactical Officers Association to be raffled as a fundraiser and make an additional contribution of $1,295 -- the value of the rifle -- to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.
Kelly's purchase of the guns sparked accusations of hypocrisy from gun-rights supporters, with many on Facebook focusing on his motivations and the rules for purchasing such guns. Kelly, a former astronaut, said he intended to eventually hand in the rifle to Tucson police but planned to keep the handgun.
Kelly and Giffords started a gun control advocacy group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, amid the wave of recent mass shootings. They have been touring the country in recent months in support of expanded background checks for gun purchases.
 
Kelly bought the guns at a Tucson shop the day before he appeared with his wife at the supermarket where she was wounded during a shooting rampage that left six dead and 12 others injured two years ago. Giffords resigned from Congress last year as she continues to recover from her injuries.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/25/gun-store-rescinds-mark-kelly-rifle-purchase-questions-his-intent/#ixzz2OeYi5yYC

[ironglow]

He should be thanking the dealer, because the dealer may have "saved his butt" !  We all know we are not supposed to be a "shadow buyer"..buying to give to another.  DUH!!
 
  Then again, Lefties can apparently get away with it..  Witness the news anchor who displayed 30 round AR-15 magazines in Washington,DC..where such things are strictly forbidden.  He's still a news anchor!
   
     Then there was the Leftie gang from Washington, DC who were involved in a gun-running enterprise, selling deadly "assault rifles" to drug cartels to make their killing easier. .. they were caught , but nobody has yet gone to the slammer, as a result of the  "Fast & Furious" fiasco.

[magooch]

I don't care whatever else this Kelly guy is, or was, he is now a douche bag.

[Ranger99]

straw purchase.

[guzzijohn]

Just to keep myself out of trouble in the future, how would one gift a firearm or can you only now give the person a gift certificate?
GuzziJohn

[ironglow]

  Guzzi;
  I have over the years, gifted many guns to my son & grandchildren.  I very rarely simply bought it and gave it to them.  I usually  kept the gun for sometime,. in fact most could be called "keepsakes".. I like to give them a gun with which I have already gotten game with.  That only makes it more treasured to them.
  "Adolph" Cuomo, governor of the People's Republik of Noo Yawk...has in the middle of the night, pushed through a bill which stops the practice of face-to-face sales or parent-to-child transfer..from now on it has to go through a "background check" with an FFL dealer..an added & costly burden .
   As you likely already know, Obama & Co are working on a federal bill which will require the same.  As a matter of fact, they are trying to kill our 2nd amendment through the UN at this very moment..

[JustaShooter]

straw purchase.

He should be thanking the dealer, because the dealer may have "saved his butt" !  We all know we are not supposed to be a "shadow buyer"..buying to give to another.  DUH!!

There is nothing illegal about buying a firearm with the intent to give it away, as long as the person you are giving it to is not a prohibited person.  No delay is required (as far as a Federal requirement goes, though I suppose a state could have something on the books).

[yellowtail3]

  "Adolph" Cuomo, governor of the People's Republik of Noo Yawk...

Snarky New York aside... what's the "Adolph" reference? Is that kind of like Hussein in the President's name, or something else?

[Ranger99]

unless it's changed(it's been a very long
time since i had an ffl) the intended recipient
of a purchased firearm must be indicated at the
time of purchase on the transaction record.
gift or not.
i think it's worded identity of the ultimate possessor.
i'll have to try to find my book if
we need to go any farther.

[yellowtail3]

Ya'll just need to lay off of Cap'n Kelly... he was just trying to educate the country the SCANDAL of how easily a retired O-6 /astronaut who has no felony record, can by a death-dealing killing machine.


douchebag

[Ranger99]

no. . .he's a late-coming male sarah brady.
he knows that the psycho dropout that shot
his mate can never be touched, so by god
he's gonna take it out on someone, that
being the law-abiding gun owners.


maybe john hinckley jr. and jared loughner
can be pen pals and swim buddies.
(sorry wrong nutjob the first time)

[scootrd]

so let me see if I got this straight ,

He passed a background check but was refused the purchase because the gun shop owner decided to infringe upon his 2nd amendment rights to own the firearm all because he doesn't like his position on politics?

[jhm]

     In the gun business you can refuse to sell a gun to anybody you want.  Tell me where you have ever heard of a business being sued for not selling them a gun.  Jim

[FPH]

     In the gun business you can refuse to sell a gun to anybody you want.  Tell me where you have ever heard of a business being sued for not selling them a gun.  Jim

I had one refuse to sell me a $2000.00 rifle because I opened my big mouth and said I'd be gifting it.

[spruce]

There's a provision on the form you fill out when buying a firearm which makes it legal to buy it for a gift for someone else.  One of the questions asks if you're buying it for your own use (words to that effect anyway, just paraphrasing).
If you're buying it with the intent of giving (or selling ) it to someone else you can answer NO to the question and you haven't broken any law.  If you answer yes (and intend to give/sell it) then you are making a false statement,and a "straw" purchase.
 
If you answer NO on that question then I'm sure there's some more hoops to jump thru before the FFL can complete the transaction.  It's up to him at that point whether he wants to go thru with the sale or nix it right there.
 
Obviously if Kelly's INTENT was to buy the rifle for a gift and he answered YES in the box (for his own use) then he made a false statement and committed a straw purchase.  Pretty cut and dried that he broke the law - but the libs won't enforce the law when it's one of their own.

[scootrd]

     In the gun business you can refuse to sell a gun to anybody you want.  Tell me where you have ever heard of a business being sued for not selling them a gun.  Jim

I'm not arguing the right of an owner of any company to refuse service. What I am pointing out is all are screaming the Govt has no right to infringe upon a persons 2nd amendment rights to own a firearm, yet that is exactly what this person did. Limit the right of this individual to own a firearm based on the personal  judgement that he didnt like his political views so it was ok to infringe on his rights to own a firearm.

A bit of hypocrisy if you ask me. 

[JustaShooter]

The actual question from the Federal Form 4473 is this:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?
Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

Note that it does not ask if you are buying it to give to someone else, but only if you are the actual buyer, and not acquiring it on behalf of someone else.  Big difference.  I can be buying it to give to my son or friend or for a raffle - that's fine.  I can't, however, be acquiring it on behalf of anyone - that is, if someone says "buy that firearm for me", that is not permitted, whether or not they give you anything in exchange for it.

So, as long as he was the actual buyer, and not acquiring it on behalf of someone else, his (attempted) purchase was completely legal.

[Brett]

     In the gun business you can refuse to sell a gun to anybody you want.  Tell me where you have ever heard of a business being sued for not selling them a gun.  Jim

I'm not arguing the right of an owner of any company to refuse service. What I am pointing out is all are screaming the Govt has no right to infringe upon a persons 2nd amendment rights to own a firearm, yet that is exactly what this person did. Limit the right of this individual to own a firearm based on the personal  judgement that he didnt like his political views so it was ok to infringe on his rights to own a firearm.

A bit of hypocrisy if you ask me.

Not the way I see it.  #1. The dealer is not the Government.  #2. Kelly is free to take his business elsewhere.