Gun store rescinds Mark Kelly's rifle purchase

[ogfarmer 138]

Looks like the store didn't like his intentions.....

 

Gun store rescinds Mark Kelly's rifle purchase, questions his 'intent'

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2OcAZoYn3

 

 

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.

[Blacksmythe 71]

Brings joy to the cockles of my heart. He should have reported it as a straw purchase.

[High Exposure 5,664]

He should have reported it as a straw purchase.

 

I thought the same thing.

[Sludog 0]

Does this shop sell t-shirts? I would love to support the owners decision not to sell the guns strictly for media attention and buy a few items from him. We should all buy a little something as a thank you. LOL

[iRescue 0]

The shop is Diamond Back Police Supply in Tucson according to the report I read

[e80hydro 120]

Brings joy to the cockles of my heart. He should have reported it as a straw purchase.

+1

[e80hydro 120]

.

[ryan_j 0]

Brings joy to the cockles of my heart. He should have reported it as a straw purchase.

 

I hope the gun store owner does this. he would be a hero.

[z2886 0]

Awesome. Just sent them a message on facebook thanking them.

[voyager9 3,434]

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."

 

Wasn't this forum up in arms about CTD and other places doing this exact thing after SandyHook?

[compujas 21]

Wasn't this forum up in arms about CTD and other places doing this exact thing after SandyHook?

 

I think the key difference is that CTD and others stopped selling firearms altogether. This place rescinded the sale after learning his true reasons. The store is still selling any and all firearms...just not to Kelly.

[voyager9 3,434]

I think the key difference is that CTD and others stopped selling firearms altogether. This place rescinded the sale after learning his true reasons. The store is still selling any and all firearms...just not to Kelly.

 

I don't remember the specific stores but I thought there were places that cancelled pending orders as well... If anything this current example is worse. The store/owner is basically saying "I don't like what you said online, so I'm cancelling your order".

 

If this was anything but a pro-gun political move some of the folks on this forum would flip their lids. I understand WHY the owner did it, and I also partially agree with the rationale but also admit that there is a certain hypocrisy there.

[El-Groucho 0]

BIG + to this store and the way they did it!

[wooly bugger 1]

Wasn't this forum up in arms about CTD and other places doing this exact thing after SandyHook?

CTD was cancelling legitimate orders. As far as I can see, Kelly just broke the law by doing a straw purchase, and the store is legally obligated to cancel the transaction and report the crime.

[I lost my gat piece 0]

He should have been in the clink for his original straw purchase. Must be nice to be a liberal public figure and do what ever you want with no consequences.

[NJDrew1 0]

These people are awesome!

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[voyager9 3,434]

CTD was cancelling legitimate orders. As far as I can see, Kelly just broke the law by doing a straw purchase, and the store is legally obligated to cancel the transaction and report the crime.

 

How does what Kelly proposed to do equal a Straw Purchase? I believe he said he'd turn the firearm over to Tuscon PD. My understanding is that it's a Straw Purchase if you knowingly purchase with the intent to provide to someone you know (or should know) is not allowed to posses. A vague reference to "Tuscon PD" hardly meets that definition.

 

I'd have more respect for the owner, or at least agree more heartily if he had simply said "Mr Kelly intends to use this purchase as a political stunt and it is not in the best interest of my business to be a part of it." Saying that Kelly's intent was not for personal use is a red herring and clouds the issue.

[I lost my gat piece 0]

How does what Kelly proposed to do equal a Straw Purchase? I believe he said he'd turn the firearm over to Tuscon PD. My understanding is that it's a Straw Purchase if you knowingly purchase with the intent to provide to someone you know (or should know) is not allowed to posses. A vague reference to "Tuscon PD" hardly meets that definition.

 

I'd have more respect for the owner, or at least agree more heartily if he had simply said "Mr Kelly intends to use this purchase as a political stunt and it is not in the best interest of my business to be a part of it." Saying that Kelly's intent was not for personal use is a red herring and clouds the issue.

 

He stated on his facebook that he intended to transfer the firearms as soon as he purchased them. It doesn't matter who they are transferred to, just that he purchased them with the intent to transfer them to another party.

[Melgamatic 66]

Wasn't this forum up in arms about CTD and other places doing this exact thing after SandyHook?

 

I think there was no similarity at all to the two situations. I'm not sure how you could get them confused. In one case, the retailers decided to stop selling a particular style of gun because they were afraid of the appearance. In this case, a retailer decided not to sell a single rifle to a single buyer because they didn't think he was buying for a legal reason. There is nothing in common between the two.

[voyager9 3,434]

I think there was no similarity at all to the two situations. I'm not sure how you could get them confused. In one case, the retailers decided to stop selling a particular style of gun because they were afraid of the appearance. In this case, a retailer decided not to sell a single rifle to a single buyer because they didn't think he was buying for a legal reason. There is nothing in common between the two.

 

In both cases the company or owner canceled pending transactions because "they were not in the best interests of the company". Both were political stunts. And don't get me wrong, I believe the store owner in this case is doing the right thing.. but it is similar to previous situations where we were on the opposite side.

[BlueLineFish 615]

That's not a transfer. That's surrendering. One is supposed to get approval before surrendering a weapon to LEO. The term straw purchase is used way too much without knowing the actual definition

[voyager9 3,434]

That's not a transfer. That's surrendering. One is supposed to get approval before surrendering a weapon to LEO. The term straw purchase is used way too much without knowing the actual definition

Can you clarify?

[PeteF 1,044]

In both cases the company or owner canceled pending transactions because "they were not in the best interests of the company". Both were political stunts. And don't get me wrong, I believe the store owner in this case is doing the right thing.. but it is similar to previous situations where we were on the opposite side.

 

The owner suspecting that Kelly would lie on Federal form 4473 question 11a is OBLIGATED to NOT make the sale. End of story.

 

11a 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.

[DSD1026 48]

Can you clarify?

a straw purchase is a person buying a weapon for the purpose of transferring it to an individual who is not legally allowed to own a firearm or cannot purchase a firearm (or wont purchase a firearm).

 

at least that is how i understand it..

[intercooler 41]

well he publicly stated to more than 1 outlet that he was going to donate it to the police right after purchasing it...now the question i want to know is whether they would prosecute him as a straw purchaser or not...clearly he bought the rifle for someone /some other group and not for himself as the 4473 states.

[DSD1026 48]

im not sure it qualifies since as BLF said, it could be considered "surrendering" the weapon, not transferring. not sure of the legalities of how that works.. he could buy it and then take it to a gun buyback program and its sort of the same thing.. that certainly isnt a straw purchase

[Sludog 0]

Is the word "Straw Purchase" actually the legal term or is this slang for gun shops? I have never heard of this until I joined this forum.

[DSD1026 48]

Straw purchase is not even a term limited to firearms.. Buying alcohol or cigarettes for minors could be considered straw purchases as well..

 

But in terms of firearms, I believe it is an actual term used by the ATF