Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  First, the transaction was cancelled before Kelly (0+ / 0-)

    even filled out the form. There is nothing remotely wrong with anything he said or did. If anyone violated the law, it was the gun seller, not the buyer. Mr. Kelly's rights were violated, not the other way around. Second, you cannot be prosecuted for buying a gun and then daring to complain that gun regulations are too lax. You cannot be prohibted from buying a gun just because the seller thinks you might saw something critical after you buy the guy. You certainly cannot be "prosecuted" for stating such an opinion. That's called freedom. I know it's a foreign concept to right wing gun nut who have a conspiratorial and authoritarian mindset that betrays every principle for which America stands.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:21:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't believe it's true that Kelly ... (0+ / 0-)

      had not yet filled out the form, so I'd like to see confirmation.  Even if he hadn't, no one has any "right" to buy an item from any particular seller.  And yes, one can be prosecuted for making false statements under oath, which is what was done if true that he wrote that the purchase was intended for personal use while saying it was intended as a gift.  

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:49:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then you didn't even read this article, because (0+ / 0-)

        it says:

        "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 Form 4473 and NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) required of Mr. Kelly before he could take possession of this firearm," MacKinlay posted on the Tuscon store's Facebook page Monday.
        Furthermore, nothing Kelly MIGHT say after purchasing the weapon would mean that he did not buy it for "personal use." Gun nuts have really strange conspiratorial fantasies about the law. But, the only person who may have broken a law here is the gun dealer, who chose to discriminate against Kelly because of what he suspected Kelly's beliefs about guns to be.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:37:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I stand corrected as to the first part. (0+ / 0-)

          That said, there is no law regarding discrimination on this issue as Kelly's being rebuffed had nothing whatsoever to do with his race, gender, religion, etc.  

          By the way, you seem eager to paint me (disparagingly) as a "gun nut", but my only interest is in the law.  I don't own a gun, never have, and don't have any plans to.  But if the need arises, yes, I expect to be able to exercise my right to do so and will therefore vote against any politician who would try to overturn my constitutional rights ... any of them.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:16:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I said earlier about segregated lunch counters (0+ / 0-)

            there is a right to expect service at a public establishment. The exact details would probably have to be tested in court, but it is hard to see this as anything other than discriminating against Kelly in an effort to deprive him of his political speech. I think he could probably make a good argument to that effect.  There is certainly nothing he did that would make him legally ineligible to purchase a gun. His speech or opinions do not constitute grounds for infringing on his rights.

            Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

            by tekno2600 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 10:18:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But that's only a cause of action ... (0+ / 0-)

              he can raise had it been a government entity that denied him.  Otherwise, as I said before, his only potential grounds for a lawsuit against a business owner is if he can show he was discriminated against because of his race, gender, or membership of any other protected group.  A business owner always has the right to refuse service to anyone, with only the above exceptions.  Denial of speech by a private entity is not a recognized ground to sue.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 10:25:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site