Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Seller cancels Mark Kelly Ar-15 buy. DENIED

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Seller cancels Mark Kelly Ar-15 buy. DENIED

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...lt-weapon-buy/

    The owner of a Tucson gun store where former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' husband purchased a semi-automatic rifle has canceled the transaction.

    Doug MacKinlay said Monday that a full refund was sent to Mark Kelly via express mail because the former astronaut didn't plan to keep the AR-15-style rifle for his personal use.

    Kelly bought the gun March 5 at Diamondback Police Supply, saying he wanted to show how easy it is to buy an assault weapon. He planned to turn it in to Tucson police.

    MacKinlay tells The Arizona Daily Star he terminated the transaction Thursday before Kelly could take possession of the firearm.

    Kelly, who couldn't be reached for comment, had said he bought the AR-15 to show how easy it is to buy an assault weapon and planned to turn it in to Tucson police, the newspaper points out.
    Last edited by zack991; 03-26-2013 at 08:54 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    I though buying a evil black rifle, in AZ, was like buying a big mac.

    I wonder if Mr. Kelly could be denied at other stores thus being forced to exercise his 2A, via the purchase of a firearm, only from out of state dealers. It would be really nice to relegate Mr. Kelly to using private transactions.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Perhaps what is so disturbing about this man is the fact that he was in the military and he doesn't even know what an assault rifle is. How in the hell did me manage to graduate from boot camp?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I though buying a evil black rifle, in AZ, was like buying a big mac.

    I wonder if Mr. Kelly could be denied at other stores thus being forced to exercise his 2A, via the purchase of a firearm, only from out of state dealers. It would be really nice to relegate Mr. Kelly to using private transactions.
    The dealer was exercising his discretion on believing that he learned the purchase was straw. While it can be argued that it is not, I too would have been uncomfortable enough to refuse the transaction. If I ain't sure that the sale is 100% lawful, I ain't making it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The dealer was exercising his discretion on believing that he learned the purchase was straw. While it can be argued that it is not, I too would have been uncomfortable enough to refuse the transaction. If I ain't sure that the sale is 100% lawful, I ain't making it.
    Kelly's intention was to use the sale to hold the seller in disrepute. The dealer would have been a fool to complete the transaction.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Fairfax VA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The dealer was exercising his discretion on believing that he learned the purchase was straw. While it can be argued that it is not, I too would have been uncomfortable enough to refuse the transaction. If I ain't sure that the sale is 100% lawful, I ain't making it.
    But of course it was an obvious straw purchase! Mark intended to buy it for the Tucson PD, and neo-liberals consider the heavily-armed Tucson PD to be a "terrorist organization"!


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    44

    Re: Seller cancels Mark Kelly Ar-15 buy. DENIED

    I can't wait to hear Mark Kelly's response.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Perhaps what is so disturbing about this man is the fact that he was in the military and he doesn't even know what an assault rifle is. How in the hell did me manage to graduate from boot camp?
    Why do you think he doesn't know? I got $5 that says he knows very well what an assault rifle is.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-01-2013 at 12:03 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Why do you think he doesn't know? I got $5 that says he knows very well what an assault rifle is.
    Based upon the simple fact that he uses the term when speaking of an AR-15 rifle. Words have meaning and if he was a man of character and honor, he would use them correctly and accordingly.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Based upon the simple fact that he uses the term when speaking of an AR-15 rifle. Words have meaning and if he was a man of character and honor, he would use them correctly and accordingly.
    Well, yes. My point is that I bet he knows darn good and well what an assault rifle is, yet is twisting the terminology like any other anti-gunner. That is to say, he's an Orwellian, manipulative freak.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Well, yes. My point is that I bet he knows darn good and well what an assault rifle is, yet is twisting the terminology like any other anti-gunner. That is to say, he's an Orwellian, manipulative freak.
    I really did understand what you wrote and I agree that he is most likely using the term in the anti-vernacular to advance his position.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240

    Re: Seller cancels Mark Kelly Ar-15 buy. DENIED

    It's just a rifle.

    Carthago Delenda Est

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I wonder if he would have been refused if he was buying a bolt action rifle.

  14. #14
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    What I would like to know is why would he have to wait to purchase the firearm? I heard of this purchase over a week ago, and he still hadn't taken control of the firearm? I thought Arizona was firearm friendly and you could walk into a gun store and walk out with your firearm like you can here in Kentucky? Was he a possible prohibited person and made to wait? Even then though, the wait is only three days.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    What I would like to know is why would he have to wait to purchase the firearm? I heard of this purchase over a week ago, and he still hadn't taken control of the firearm? I thought Arizona was firearm friendly and you could walk into a gun store and walk out with your firearm like you can here in Kentucky? Was he a possible prohibited person and made to wait? Even then though, the wait is only three days.
    I don't know anything, but maybe the rifle was ordered and had to be shipped to the dealer?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    There is no wait for prohibited persons. If the NICS reveals that a person is prohibited, the result is a "Deny," and the deal is killed instantaneously.

    If the check cannot be resolved within minutes, it becomes a "Delay." Delays can be for up to 30 days. After three full business days, the dealer can transfer the firearm without having gotten the "Proceed" if State law does not disallow it. Three full business days is a total of five days: the day of the NICS check, the next three full days, and the earliest day the firearm can be transferred without a "Proceed."

    I think the most likely explanation is that Kelly was waiting for some commercial reason such as the firearm not being in stock.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    What I would like to know is why would he have to wait to purchase the firearm? I heard of this purchase over a week ago, and he still hadn't taken control of the firearm? I thought Arizona was firearm friendly and you could walk into a gun store and walk out with your firearm like you can here in Kentucky? Was he a possible prohibited person and made to wait? Even then though, the wait is only three days.
    The reason for the delay was because it was a second hand gun and a local ordinance requires FFL's to hold second hand weapons for 20 days to ensure the weapon was not stolen or used for criminal activity.

    This was covered in a lot of the early articles about the purchase itself. He bought a .45 pistol at the same time and I don't believe he had to wait for that.
    Last edited by arentol; 04-02-2013 at 11:00 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    The reason for the delay was because it was a second hand gun and a local ordinance requires FFL's to hold second hand weapons for 20 days to ensure the weapon was not stolen or used for criminal activity.

    This was covered in a lot of the early articles about the purchase itself. He bought a .45 pistol at the same time and I don't believe he had to wait for that.
    Not exactly true. The issue is that the store was buying the AR15 from another person and the law requires that the FFL own the weapon for 20 days before they can resell it to someone else in order to make sure that the weapon wasn't used in criminal activity. It has nothing to do with it being a second handgun, and as you said he got the .45 right away.

  19. #19
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Not exactly true. The issue is that the store was buying the AR15 from another person and the law requires that the FFL own the weapon for 20 days before they can resell it to someone else in order to make sure that the weapon wasn't used in criminal activity. It has nothing to do with it being a second handgun, and as you said he got the .45 right away.
    I think he meant second hand as in previously owned. He said "second hand gun" not "second handgun".
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  20. #20
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,, and...

    Here is a thing I have a thought about.
    Ever since this sale was bantied about.
    Does Mark have a legal, right to get that sale, of a gun?
    I mean, the gun store agreed to sell him a gun, pending the background check.
    Do they have the right? to refuse that sale, now, after they said they would sell?
    Can Mark, sue them to complete the transaction?
    I think he has grounds to force the sale, even if the gun store doesnt want to , Now, forwhetever reason.
    It is not any kind of straw purchace, or otherwise unlawfull,
    what ever he wants to do with the gun, makes no nevermind to noboy...

    Can he make them sell that gun to him?
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No, he cannot make them sell him the gun. If, at any point prior to the transfer, the transferor has any reason to believe that the transferee is a prohibited person or is making a straw purchase, the transferor is to stop the transaction cold.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ocoee, Florida
    Posts
    101

    The Irony

    Have you seen this?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Giffords.jpg 
Views:	160 
Size:	42.3 KB 
ID:	10217
    When those in Government fail to see the danger in too much Government, they become the danger.
    (Original quote by me)

    If we lose the Second Amendment it is only a matter of time before we lose the First Amendment, then the Fourth Amendment and then it is all downhill from there ...

    I've OCed and didn't scare the horses or stampede the women!

    It's too late to train when you are in the middle of a gunfight ... (me)

    IDPA SSP/MM

  23. #23
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    Just to address a few points:

    1. Mark Kelly is a retired NAVY Captain. It is very unlikely, in my experience, that he does, in fact, know what constitutes an "assault rifle. Source of my experience: Stepbrother is a retired Chief Gunner's Mate (guns) and had even more contempt for some of the Navy officers he served under than I do for some of the Army officers I served under. Remember that it was a Navy officer who ran an obscenely expensive, nearly new minesweeper aground on a protected Phillippine reef, causing its loss.

    2. From my limited understanding of the law, when Kelly made the comment about turning the rifle over to the police department, it became a de facto straw purchase.

    3. Even if #2 were not the case, when Kelly made his statement, the dealer would have been insane to go through with the sale. He would most probably have been painted in the media as being irresponsible in selling an "assault weapon".
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Seller cancels Mark Kelly Ar-15 buy. DENIED

    I enjoy reading your typically high-quality posts such as this one.

    #3 is more likely the case. Purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift is not a straw purchase. However, if Kelly were to try to buy from me under these circumstances, I'd argue this gray area of the law from the exact opposite POV, following your thinking in #3.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    So what if I'm buying a firearm with the specific intent of reselling it? For instance, a sweet AR shows up on the local shelves and a great price so I purchase it with the specific intent that I'm not going to keep it but instead resell it.

    My understanding is that I'm buying it for myself at the time of purchase so it's not a straw purchase. That I intend to sell it to turn a profit doesn't seem to be relevant. I think it's significant that I'm not buying it in order to give it to a particular individual and that it is MY money, not someone else's that is purchasing the weapon.

    Now, in the current situation with firearms and ammo I wouldn't blame an FFL for not making the sale in order to keep me from jacking up the price and gouging someone but is it LEGAL?

    I believe it is.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •