Skip to main content

View Diary: Mark Kelly Denied 2nd Amendment Rights! (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Captain Kelly is not a straw purchaser (0+ / 0-)

    Thats not the problem.  the problem is the language of question 11a itself.

    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 firearms on behalf of another person.  If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer can not transfer the firearm(s) to you.
    It's splitting hairs to some, but the law is pretty clear.  Mark Kelly got himself into this mess, and got himself deeper by trying to come up with a politically correct explanation for buying an AR-15, a rifle he's perfectly legally and morally eligible to possess.
    •  You are really stretching to reach that conclusion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheDuckManCometh, a2nite, WakeUpNeo

      Mark Kelly has a right to buy a firearm for his own use, his own stated purpose to experience/research the process is not a crime.

      There is no lie there.

      What he decides to do after he has completed his research with the gun (e.g. spends some time at a range to see how it fires, etc.) is his perogative.

      You have no evidence to support your claim that he was buying the gun FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

      This is actually hilarious and I hope the story blows up even bigger. It just may be the perfect vehicle to show that if we want to reduce the flow of guns to criminal hands, then a  lifetime audit trail for each gun should be something we consider.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:25:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He said so himself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim
        You have no evidence to support your claim that he was buying the gun FOR SOMEONE ELSE.
        Capt. Kelly said this himself... hes buying it for the Tucson PD.
        Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week. I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole
        Hes his own worst enemy in this incident.  He's getting himself into trouble with his own statements :(
        •  Nice, but I see a problem with your logic. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          As is pointed out above, he'd have to receive the money from someone else to buy the weapon to be a straw purchaser.  Since he's paying for it himself, he's not a straw purchaser.  It's no different than buying a gun as a present for someone (another thing that's not prohibited above, unless that person is excluded from ownership.  The Tucson PD fits none of those categories to be excluded, so what he's doing is still perfectly legal.

          The gun shop owner has no legal right to claim he's not trying to perform a legal purchase and as such, I don't think they have a right not to sell it to him.  I don't know, however, since IANAL, whether a gun shop owner has the right to not sell a weapon because they just don't like the purchaser, which is what this boils down to.  And the NRA should be on Mark Kelly's side on this, but of course they're not.

          •  I'll assert that this gun dealer probably (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, a2nite

            discriminates against anyone they feel like discriminating against.

            I don't think they have a right not to sell it to him.  I don't know, however, since IANAL, whether a gun shop owner has the right to not sell a weapon because they just don't like the purchaser, which is what this boils down to.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:07:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is true. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim

              Dealers can choose whom they sell to and whom they don't.  Generally speaking, if they believe there is risk that they would be selling a firearm to a person who will misuse it, is lying, or really anything else, they can refuse service.

              Its like any other retailer, they don't have to sell to you, and you don't have to buy from them (i.e vote with your feet and your wallet).

          •  I never calimed he was a straw purchaser (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim

            The Gun Control Act, the law which requires potential buyers to fill out 4473 doesn't address that.

            What it addresses is that if you are buying it for yourself, for your own use, you fill out 11a a certain way.  if you're not buying it for yourself, you fill it out another way (which pretty much self-limits your ability to have the weapon transferred to you)

            The law needs to be better than what it is.  It sets up ambiguities like this situation.  But, the law is in effect, and has to be followed until it's changed.

            •  You did, indeed, state that he is NOT a straw (0+ / 0-)

              purchaser.  It is up to the lawyers to care whether purchasing it with the intent to turn it over to the police department, who didn't ask him to purchase it nor did they fund it, means that he didn't answer truthfully on the form.  I see it as purchasing the gun for his own purpose of making a statement, and he decided that for disposal of the weapon he would do it legally by turning it over to the police, which are not any of the precluded classes from owning the weapon.  My problem with his disposal choice is the Arizona law that police departments who come into possession of weapons must sell the weapon rather than destroy it.  That means that AR-15 will be back in circulation and it will continue to be a threat in the hands of whoever purchases it from the police.  The threat doesn't mean an intentional threat, since accidents happen with firearms.  Those accidents have much harsher outcomes than accidents that could happen, say, with a pen.

              •  an FFL can lose their license over a questionable (0+ / 0-)

                sale.

                IF the dealer thinks anything isn't quite right, he's within his rights to cancel the sale.  If he waits until two lawyers and a judge is deciding weather or not a straw purchase has taken place, it's already too late for his business.

                I assume Mark Kelly, an Arizona resident, and firearms enthusiast is also aware of the Tuscon PD policy.  If he had thought about this, he would have never had chosen to buy the rifle for the Tuscon PD.  Or the legal advisor of his anti-gun foundation should have pointed this out in planning.  Assuming, of course, that Capt. Kelly planned to do this in the first place...

                This just gives me more reason to think this whole mess is borne out of a panic decision on his part to lie when caught buying an AR-15.  He's just digging the hole deeper now that I know his donated weapon is going right back onto the market.

        •  No he's not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite
          hes buying it for the Tucson PD.
          You are deliberately reaching a conclusion that you want to reach despite a lack of evidence.

          What someone does with a gun when they transfer it out of their possession is their private business. That's why it's called a private sale (or private transfer).

          No matter how hard you stretch your claim fails for lack of evidence.

          There is no evidence that Mark Kelly fraudulently sought to use his own background clearance to purchase a weapon for someone who cannot purchase a gun themselves. When he picked up the gun, it will be in his private collection. When he decides he no longer wants any gun in his collection he can privately transfer it to anyone who is not a prohibited person.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:12:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So you are suggesting. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          That Capt. Kelly was not the purchaser of the weapon, but rather that the Police Dept. was.  This is plainly and on it's face nonsense. Capt. Kelly was clearly purchasing the weapon for his own use, and stated that use included handing that weapon on to a legal recipient.  The question that brought about this political stunt by the seller, is intended and reserved for the purpose of preventing the purchase of a firearm by a person who knows that they could not pass a background check, through the use of a proxy.

          The consequence of your interpretation would mean that ANY person who purchased any weapon and informed the store owner that the firearm was to be purchased as a gift for their 17 year old child or other leagal recipient must now be refused that sale.  A clearly ridiculous outcome, although one to be cheered on by all people who hold that curtailing an individual freedom for the purpose of public safety is a reasonable position to hold.

          I will point out that I am not an advocate for ownership of firearms, quite the contrary, I support without condition all of the gun control legislation in my own country, and would support further restrictions if they were deemed neccessary to prevent the death or injury of innocents.

          During my limited military experience, when I was young a weapons instructor pointed out that if you wanted to be safe around firearms then you needed to remember two things.

          1. The gun is ALWAYS loaded.
          2. The person holding it is ALWAYS an idiot.

          My own observation.  A responsible gun owner is merely someone who is only one  moment of distraction or stupidity from becoming a member of the #GunFail club

          In all of the world's problems religion has never been the solution

          by Tailgunner30uk on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:38:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Theres nothing funny about this. (0+ / 0-)

        If you or I got caught in this situation, there are good odds we'd be spending a lot of our money and time (and our attourny's time) fighting a felony charge.

        If you or I were foolish enough to bring a 30 round magazine into DC like David Gregory did, I don't think we'd be given the benefit of the doubt, like he was.

        When ordinary citizens talk our way into a charge, all we have is our lawyer standing between us and jailtime.  

        There's a different standard for regular folks.  This is yet another issue I'd hope gets some attention, but I know won't.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site