Skip to main content

Really!!

And not by the government but by a gun shop owner using dubious reasoning, just like the LaPierre. Not enough of a paranoid 'good guy' gun owner, even though he and Gabby are known gun owners.

When caught only the FOX had the report up for hours, this CNN report had only been up for about one plus now.

Gun store nixes Mark Kelly's AR-15 purchase

26 March 2013 - An Arizona gun store says it has canceled a recent purchase of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle by Mark Kelly thwarting the retired astronaut's attempt to demonstrate how easy it is to buy high-powered weapons.

Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and an outspoken advocate for new gun control measures, had in recent interviews said he was buying the rifle to showcase what he said are unobtrusive background checks.

Doug MacKinlay, owner of Diamondback Police Supply, said it was Kelly's statements that caused him to stop the sale.

"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.

MacKinlay said he sent a full refund to Kelly and nixed the transaction because Kelly made statements in the media that the rifle purchase was "for reasons other then for his personal use." read more>>>

And a couple of meme's at the CNN site, along with one of my FB friends are using the 'straw purchase' reasoning and then wanting to talk about a dog, hadn't read that yet, he pulled off a baby sea lion instead as it was his daughters dog.

Earlier, yesterday, Bloomberg uses Reality to the looney LaPierre's idiotic statement that frankly condemns himself and the NRA:

"He's going to find out this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people and he can't spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public," said LaPierre.

Mayor Bloomberg fired back on Monday.

"I don't think anybody can buy America but in the context of they've spent a $100 million and I've spent $10 million ... when you were a kid, there was something about throwing stones if you lived in glass houses," he said.

The gun shop owner just dictated what right's Kelly has, none as to guns. Just as those pols the NRA buy tear down the right's of others, to vote, to collectively bargain in labor, to unionize, to get an actual living wage, to have choice and on and on and on..............................................................................!!

Thought the spin was Everyone should and has a right to purchase a gun, no exclusions. Why just over the weekend they had rally's all over about them rights to pack. They interviewed one attending near here who described himself as a tea party member, who held the rally, and he said citizens have a right to legally own any weapon the Military and Law enforcement have rights to use. Apparently they want more then guns, so watch out for them civilian controlled drones, armed and ready!!

On them straw purchases, I'd check this gun shops records, plenty of weapons and ammo from Southeast shops and gun shows have found the way to the Mexican drug cartels for years now, that gun running spreading up and down and across the inter-states even to the East coast. Just so them drugs can freely flow back up to fill the needs here.

Originally posted to jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 03:58 AM PDT.

Also republished by Baja Arizona Kossacks, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (41+ / 0-)

    "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

    by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 03:58:44 AM PDT

  •  Just gotta love asshats! (8+ / 0-)

    Great catch, jim. I can't wait to see the commando fringe when their heads explode over this one.

    Good on ya, Mark!

    Peace.

  •  Wingnut hypocrisy (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimstaro, CwV, hnichols, S F Hippie, WakeUpNeo

    T&R

    Help me to be the best Wavy Gravy I can muster

    by BOHICA on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:22:33 AM PDT

  •  How the owner can say it's not for his personal (16+ / 0-)

    use is beyond me. If he wants to use it for his personal right to speak out against lax gun safety laws, then it's still his right to purchase it under current law.

    A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. - Greek proverb

    by marleycat on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:25:16 AM PDT

    •  Not Just the Gun Shop Owner (7+ / 0-)

      The replies, by the way CBS has it up now as well, are following same FOX speak meme.

      The Lapierre twisted in knots speak, as well, is the norm for the way them cells work.

      I happened to see it but with the FOX report, I don't link to FOX nor frankly even give them my own traffic, so a quick search brought up the recent CNN post about. The FOX apparently had the direct line to whatever point the owner was trying to make so they had it up for hours yet nobody caught it, tells ya something!!

      "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

      by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:52:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Mark Kelly remarked it was for his personal use (0+ / 0-)

      on form 4473 and remained silent, there would be no issue.  Or, if he remarked that the rifle was a gift for a 3rd party (the police department) on form 4473, there would be no issue.

      Its a felony offense to fill out false or misleading information on 4473, punishable by up to ten years in prison, or a 250,000 dollar fine.

      In addition, the FFL can lose their license if they let offenses like this slide.  SO it's not just Capt. Kelly with skin in this game.

      If you or I got caught lying on the form, we'd be in the same situation.  What Captain Kelly did stupid.  He got caught in a lie and now, he's facing the fallout.

  •  These guns nuts aren't very pro-second amendment.. (12+ / 0-)

    ....when an pro-regulation person wants to buy a gun.

    I've noticed this elsewhere, where gun store jerks refuse to sell to Obama voters.

    Can't they be sued for that, under current laws, as a violation of the second amendment?

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:33:17 AM PDT

  •  Maybe Mark (12+ / 0-)

    Wanted to make a Escopetarra out of it and sing hippie anti-war songs. Can't have that.

    Help me to be the best Wavy Gravy I can muster

    by BOHICA on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:37:34 AM PDT

  •  They only want people they like to have guns (12+ / 0-)

    not someone different.

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:37:55 AM PDT

  •  To paraphrase the NRA... (9+ / 0-)

    "The only thing that can stop a liberal guy with a gun is a conservative guy with a gun not letting him buy one."

    •  That's good, but (5+ / 0-)

      Mark Kelly is not what you'd normally think of as a Liberal Guy. Lifetime in the military, probably less liberal than his wife who was rather BlueDog when she was a Rep.
      He's no more liberal than Jim Brady.
      He's changed his attitude about guns since seeing first hand the downside.
      You know that old line about a Conservative is a Liberal that's been mugged? This is that kind of conversion, but the other way around.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:06:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He wasn't denied his rights (8+ / 0-)

    The second amendment only applies to governments.  Just because one merchant won't sell him a gun doesn't mean he can't still get one.

    Sorry, but you're wrong about this one. Try again.

    •  Say What (6+ / 0-)

      Ya gotta be a dear leader LaPierre speak advocate!!!!!!!

      Take your own suggestion and try again ace!!

      "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

      by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:13:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I gotta agree with him... (6+ / 0-)

        I've read many times on this site that the First Amendment of free speech doesn't apply to this site because it's private and applies only to government action.  Why should the Second be any different?  The guy's action in denying Mr. Kelly are the actions of a jerk and a nra stooge, but they haven't anything to do with the second amendment.  

        You can't have it both ways.  If Kos can ban people here for speech and not be in violation of the First Amendment, then this guy can refuse Mark Kelly his desire to buy a gun from the fool's store without being in violation of the Second Amendment.

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:53:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whelp (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hnichols, a2nite

          That's a reach to, but there is a point there anyway!!

          But you lapierrebots gotta come up with much better critical thoughts and frankly commonsense, he doesn't nor do most who have been quickly spitting on the graves of the Newtown kids killed!!

          "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

          by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:14:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hnichols

          Read what I have just under the 'Really!'!!

          "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

          by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:16:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh Ya (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, hnichols

          On that 'free speach', there's speaking and then there's speaking, and if you're so thin skinned and not using responsible speak, that you wouldn't want same pointed right back at cha, then you're misinterpreting the 1st as the gun nuts do the 2nd to justify your wants and screw everyone else's, i.e. the NRA cult!!!

          "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

          by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:46:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Keepin' it classy. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, Shamash
    •  The point is that the NRA (4+ / 0-)

      wants anyone and everyone to be able to buy any kind of weapon without any interference from the government. They are opposed to background checks or any regulation of the lethality or capacity of the weapon.

      According to them it is an absolute necessity that every person in the U.S. should have a weapon to defend their life and property and especially should not be denied accessibility to assault style weapons.

      Except for Mark Kelly.

      The minute this reasoning doesn't work to their benefit they throw all their hypocritical crap out the window. That's a really solid belief system they've got there.

      •  That's what Bloomberg (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, LilithGardener, hnichols

        Was pointing out and LaPierre does the spin speak constantly. I don't think he listens to himself even if he writes a speech down and reads it. Frankly so do the followers, no matter politics or parties, ask to explain they can't or ignore and go on flip floppin all over. Guess somehow it makes sense to them, but they do it for everything not just guns or second amendment!

        "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

        by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:54:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Segregated lunch counters should still exist by (5+ / 0-)

      this reasoning. If you operate a public enterprise, you should not be able to discriminate against customers just because you don't like them or what they believe.

      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 08:06:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        If the store owner had denied the sale "just because", then Mark Kelley would probably be able to take legal action. However, Mark Kelley's stated reason for the purchase seems to have allowed the store owner to use a legal pretext to deny the sale.

        A specious attempt to score a cheap political point? Certainly. One might make the same observation about this diary.

        •  The death dealer doesn't have any valid legal (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, a2nite, WakeUpNeo

          pretext for stopping the gun sale. Just because the death dealer believes the customer will discuss the lax background checks that exist for gun purchases does not mean he knows the gun is being purchased for any prohibited purpose. He seems to be trying to anticipate and restraint Kelly's political speech. The idea that Kelly is a "straw purchaser" is idiotic, as there is no reason to believe he is buying the gun to transfer it to anyone else. I would expect to see successful legal action against the death dealer.

          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 09:54:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're only half a smart ass. Keep practicing. n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  If Kelley were to be prosecuted ... (0+ / 0-)

            for making a false statement on the form, the seller could be prosecuted as well for being a co-conspirator since it is apparently aware that there is a difference between what Kelley wrote and what he's said publicly.

            "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 05:36:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  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 ]

          •  A seller can deny services for any reason he (0+ / 0-)

            chooses or just no reason at all.  The lone exceptions to this are the federal protected classes.  See my comment below for a detailed description of the legal ways a private business can not deny services.

            Other than those listed below a shop owner can deny service or products, if they so choose, and it is perfectly legal.

      •  We already know this - and there is recent case (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tekno2600, a2nite, WakeUpNeo

        law upholding exactly what you wrote.

        If you operate a public enterprise, you should not be able to discriminate against customers just because you don't like them or what they believe.
        Recent case: If I operate a wedding venue, then find out that a couple who is planning to marry at my venue, happens to be of the same sex, I cannot refuse them service on the basis of my religious beliefs.

        "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 11:25:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Local story here - (5+ / 0-)

    The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

    by Azazello on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:19:19 AM PDT

    •  Thanks (4+ / 0-)

      But even that time line of their post follows the hours the FOX had it up, though now others are posting.

      That's one of the things I caught, like it was a set, he decided to do this, or someone did, and the exclusive goes to fox speak so the herd can quickly come up with whatever they could to justify, then start parroting, the total hypocrisy, apparently wingnut think tanks don't have workers at night!!

      "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

      by jimstaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:50:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was disgusting to see CNN quoting (5+ / 0-)

        "Gotcha" assertions from Breitbart.com and asking Mark Kelly to respond, as if Breitbart.com was a credible source of truth - and as if Mark Kelly was some how "caught" doing something worth of public ridicule or shame.

        CNN is getting more and more pathetic.

        "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 07:59:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is a corollary to my usual rant (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neuroptimalian

          About criminals getting caught providing false information on ATF form 4473 (which is a felony) and nobody doing a damned things about it.

          This time it wasn't a criminal, it was a successful Naval officer (flag grade) and NASA Astronaut.  This time, it's a 'good guy'.

          This time, the 'good guy' filled out misleading information likely question 11a .

          IF mark answered 11a the way he usually does (when a buyer is buying the firearm for himself but makes a public statement that he had no intention of keeping the rifle, he was going to give it to the local Police Department, he's just committed a felony.

          This is really a silly, stupid situation Mark Kelly got himself into.  It looks like he got caught in a lie (either buying the rifle for himself but realizing it made him look like a hypocrite, or buying the rifle for a stunt and filling out misleading information on ATF from 4473 because he's used to buying firarms for himself, not for a 3rd party).

          •  Show me where it's a crime to buy a firearm (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, jimstaro, a2nite

            for your own personal use (your own reasons) and then gift it to someone who is legally permitted to own guns.

            "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 09:13:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If Capt. Kelly would have kept his mouth shut (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neuroptimalian

              until he took possession of the firearm, there would be no issue. Under current law, he could have taken possession, then gifted it to whomever he wants.  this bring us to two issues:

              1). isn't the whole push behind universal background checks, something that I back, supposed to address private sale/transfer of firearms?

              2). Prisons are full of people, innocent or not, who talked their way into a sentence.

              I don't have any issues with him buying a firearm, he's legally entitled to one. I think he got caught in a situation that while completely benign, looks terribly politically incorrect at a time when he's trying to build political legitimacy though his new gun control organization and the democratic party in general, and he let himself talk his way into a problem.

          •  It would be helpful to see this form with (0+ / 0-)

            question 11a, along with how he answered it.  That would help us make up our minds about whether he answered truthfully or not.  At this point, I'm still inclined to say that whatever he does with the gun, except something illegal like threatening people or shooting it at people, is still perfectly legal.  If he wants to use it as a prop, he can.  If he wants it for self-protection, he can.  If he wants to use it to demonstrate how easy it is to buy the gun, I think he's allowed to do that as well, along with disposing of it however he wants to, within the law.  

            I hope he doesn't just give it to the police, because I think they'd be obligated to resell it and Ted Nugent would be lining up to buy that.

            •  question 11a is a yes/no question. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim, Neuroptimalian

              if you answer yes, you are answering on the form that you are buying the firearm for yourself.  If you answer no, the dealer can not release the firearm to you.

              What Capt/ Kelly did, was answer 11a (either yes/no) then issue a public statement that he had intended to buy it for the Tuscon PD all along.  

              That is what incriminated his 11a answer.  If he gives a statement that he intended all along to give it away (to anyone) and answered yes, he's breaking the law.  If he answers 11a "no" he's not getting the firearm at all.

              By the way, the police are not obligated to sell any firearms turned in.  They're all "destroyed".  If they did resell firearms, these gun buy-back programs would be a huge profit opportunity for local law enforcement, most of which could use the funds.

            •   (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              Here is what is asked on Form 4473, Question 11.

              It's a real stretch to construe Mark Kelly's statements that when his research is finished he plans to turn the firearm into the Tuscon Police Department.

              11. Aliens Illegally or Unlawfully in the United States: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully entered the United States or who illegally remains in the United States after his or her authorized period of stay has expired.

              11a. Nonimmigrant Aliens: A nonimmigrant alien is an alien who is lawfully in the United States on a temporary basis for purposes of travel, business, study, etc. The term does NOT include a permanent resident alien (someone who possesses a “green card.”) A nonimmigrant alien may only purchase or receive a firearm if he or she: (a) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or presents a valid hunting license or permit issued by a State; (b) qualifies as a foreign diplomat, official, or law enforcement officer as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2); or (c) has received a waiver of the prohibition from the Attorney General.

              Questions for the potential buyer of a firearm on Form 4473-Part I

              Form 4473-part I http://www.atf.gov/...

              In addition to their name, address, and other identity information a potential buyer is asked the following Yes/No questions.

              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. (See instructions for questions 11.a) Exception: if you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a and in the proceed to question 11.b.

              11b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (See instructions for questions 11.b)

              11c. have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence under probation? (See instructions for questions 11.c)

              11d. Are you a fugitive from justice?

              11e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

              11f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective ( which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others were incompetent to manage your affairs) OR  have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See instructions for questions 11.f)

              11g. Have you ever been discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions?

              11h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? (See instructions for questions 11.h)

              11i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

              11j. Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship? (If no, proceed to question 13.)

              11k. Are you an alien illegally in the United States?

              11l. Are you an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa? (See instructions for questions 11.l)

              "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 12:45:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ...Mark Kelly's statements [as a lie. When...] (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                It's a real stretch to construe Mark Kelly's statements that when his research is finished he plans to turn the firearm into the Tuscon Police Department.

                "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 12:46:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  This is what happens when you do business with a (4+ / 0-)

    Guns over people bigot. He may want to buy one on line.

  •  Mark Kelly was not a straw purchaser (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Losty, ColoTim, tytalus

    The dealer, or someone who works there, (for whatever reasons), went to Breitbart first, and now the dealer went to FOX with an exclusive to try to smear Mark Kelly. It's a classic tactic. If you don't like the message get friends in the media to attack the messenger.

    It's useful to refresh our memory of how federal law defines prohibited persons. Please review the list below and decide for yourself if Mark Kelly's "research" makes him a prohibited person. Bear in mind that anyone can give a  firearm to someone they know. As long as the recipient is not a prohibited person there is no problem.

    1. Straw Purchaser: A “straw purchaser” is a person who is not the “actual buyer” of the firearm; that is, a person who obtains a firearm for another person. Straw purchases are a primary source of firearms used in crime. If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale—such as one person picking out the firearm, handling the firearm, and providing the payment for the firearm while another person completes the Form 4473—you should not sell the firearm. Similarly, if one person attempts to purchase a firearm, NICS denies or delays the attempted purchase, and another person with him or her attempts to buy the same firearm, you must not complete this sale.

    Federal Firearms Licensee Quick Reference and Best Practices Guide
    (A few excerpts)

    http://www.atf.gov/...

    Prohibited Transfers

    You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited from possessing or receiving a  firearm. Do not sell or otherwise transfer a firearm and do not contact NICS if you have reason to believe that a person seeking to obtain a firearm is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.

    Note: If a person answers “No” to Item 11.a or 12 of Form 4473, or answers “Yes” to one or more questions in Items 11.b through 11.l of Form 4473, that person has given you reason to believe he or she is prohibited and the transaction must be stopped.

    You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any of the following prohibited persons or in the following circumstances:

    1. Straw Purchaser: A “straw purchaser” is a person who is not the “actual buyer” of the firearm; that is, a person who obtains a firearm for another person. Straw purchases are a primary source of firearms used in crime. If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale—such as one person picking out the firearm, handling the firearm, and providing the payment for the firearm while another person completes the Form 4473—you should not sell the firearm. Similarly, if one person attempts to purchase a firearm, NICS denies or delays the attempted purchase, and another person with him or her attempts to buy the same firearm, you must not complete this sale.

    2.  Person Under Indictment: A person “under indictment” includes any person who has been charged by indictment or information in any court with a crime for which he or she may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year.

    3.  Person Convicted of a Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding 1 Year: This prohibited person category includes any person who has been convicted of a felony or other crime for which the person could have been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year—EVEN if the court actually placed the person on probation or sentenced the person to a term of imprisonment for 1 year or less.

    4.  Fugitive from Justice: A fugitive from justice is a person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime (felony or misdemeanor) or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.

    5.  Unlawful Drug User or Drug Addict: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully uses—or is addicted to—marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotic drugs, or other controlled substances. Alcohol is NOT considered a controlled substance.

    6.  Adjudicated Mental Defective or Person Involuntarily Committed to a Mental Institution: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been adjudicated by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a danger to himself or herself or to others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or to manage his/or her own affairs. This category also includes any person who has been subject to a finding of insanity in a criminal case, including a finding that he or she is incompetent to stand trial. Also included is any person who has EVER been formally committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This category does NOT include a person committed to a mental institution solely for observation or a person who was voluntarily admitted to a mental institution.

    7.  Person Dishonorably Discharged from the Military: A person is considered dishonorably discharged only if he or she was separated from the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a dishonorable discharge or a dismissal adjudged by a general court-martial. This prohibition does NOT include persons with a bad conduct discharge or any other less than honorable discharge.

    8. Person Subject to a Restraining Order: This prohibited person category includes any person who is currently subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, child of the person, or child of the intimate partner OR engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner or child. The court order must meet the specific requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to be prohibiting.

    9. Person Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence regardless of the title of the offense. The offense must meet the definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Note: Unlike other prohibited person categories, law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use are NOT exempt from this prohibited person category.

    10. Person who has Renounced U.S. Citizenship: A person has renounced his or her United States citizenship if he or she takes formal steps to renounce her/his citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer or before an officer designated by the Attorney General during a time of war.

    11. Aliens Illegally or Unlawfully in the United States: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully entered the United States or who illegally remains in the United States after his or her authorized period of stay has expired.

    11a. Nonimmigrant Aliens: A nonimmigrant alien is an alien who is lawfully in the United States on a temporary basis for purposes of travel, business, study, etc. The term does NOT include a permanent resident alien (someone who possesses a “green card.”) A nonimmigrant alien may only purchase or receive a firearm if he or she: (a) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or presents a valid hunting license or permit issued by a State; (b) qualifies as a foreign diplomat, official, or law enforcement officer as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2); or (c) has received a waiver of the prohibition from the Attorney General.

    12. Sale of a Firearm or Ammunition to a Person Under Age 18: You may not sell or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 18 years old.

    13. Sale of a Handgun or Handgun Ammunition to a Person Under Age 21: You may not sell or deliver a firearm other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition other than rifle or shotgun ammunition—to a person who you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 21 years old. A firearm frame or receiver is not a rifle or shotgun and may not be sold to a person under 21 years old.

    14. Sale in Violation of State Law or Published Ordinance: You may not sell or deliver a firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession would be in violation of a State law or published ordinance.

    We recommend that you refer to the most recent edition of ATF’s State Laws and Published Ordinances–Firearms.
    Age Restrictions

    As noted above, under Federal law, the minimum age to purchase firearms and ammunition from an FFL is 18. If the firearm is other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition for other than a rifle or a shotgun—the minimum age is 21 [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)]. However:

    1. You may sell ammunition that is interchangeable between rifles and handguns to a buyer who is at least 18 years of age if you are satisfied that he or she will use the ammunition in a rifle.

    2. Regardless of less restrictive State and local age requirements for firearms and ammunition purchases, you must adhere to the above Federal mininum age
    provisions.

    Transfers Between Licensees

    Generally, FFLs may transfer firearms to other FFLs, including interstate transfers, without completing Form 4473 for these transactions. In these instances, the following procedures must be followed:

    1. Transactions between licensees must be recorded in the bound book (Acquisition and Disposition or A&D) records of both licensees.

    2. The FFL who is buying the firearm must furnish a certified copy of their license to the selling FFL prior to the transfer of any firearm. This certified copy may be emailed or faxed.

    Background Check 101 - What is a Straw Buyer?
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    "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 08:41:40 AM PDT

    •  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.

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    A group of us wrote to MacKinlay asking him not to participate in this stunt.  Next time I'm in AZ, Diamondback has my business.

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:11:06 AM PDT

    •  Tell us again how you rationalize (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, a2nite

      denying a firearm purchase by a law abiding gun owner because you don't care for their political beliefs.

      What about all the other law abiding gun owners whose beliefs the dealer doesn't like? Can the dealer deny sales to those customers too?

      "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 11:41:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Same way I rationalize supporting the manufacturers boycott o public agencies in restrictive states.  I'm in it to win it.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:44:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Any private business can deny service and/or (0+ / 0-)

        sale to a customer for any reason or no reason at all unless the reason is because the customer is a part of the federally protected class and this is the main/only reason for denial.

        Here are the lone exceptions in which a private business can not discriminate:

        Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

        Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
        National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

        Age (40 and over) – Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

        Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964

        Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

        Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974

        Other than the above mentioned....a business does not have to service or sell to anyone, if they do not wish to.  They do not have to have a reason and can simply ask you to leave.  Hence the reason for the signs you see in almost every business you walk into, that say "We can refuse service for any reason."  

          Even in the cases of the above mentioned, it must be proven as the main and/or only reason for denial and generally it will at some point end up in court, if the customer wishes to take it that far.

        •  Mark Kelly is a Veteran (0+ / 0-)

          You already knew that, right?

          "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 Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 11:32:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It matters not. Unless the business owner denied (0+ / 0-)

            him service BECAUSE he was a veteran, then there is no case.  It would have to be a denial that was basis for that reason in particular and provable on that basis.  

            If he denied him  because of his race, or age, or veteran status or any of the other federal protected classes...then there is something there. It has to be the main and/or only reason and provable.

            "You're a Vet and I hate Vets and will not serve one! So get out!"  that kind of thing....not simply because you are one.

             

  •  The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with this (0+ / 0-)

    No government is denying his right to own a firearm.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:13:16 AM PDT

  •  As far as his 2A rights, only the government can (0+ / 0-)

    be the one infringing on a Bill of Rights right.

      The Bill of Rights was written as protection for the people from the government.  If the police, federal or state government office or any other entity within the government denies you one of your rights under the Bill of Rights then that's an issue.  A private business can not infringe as the rights are only guaranteed to a person from government interference.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site