Skip to comments.Report Mark Kelly to the Pima County District Attorney (Vanity)
Posted on 03/26/2013 9:53:39 AM PDT by mnehring
Recently, Mark Kelly attempted to purchase an AR-15 from a Tucson gun dealer to make a political point about background checks.
In doing so, Mark Kelly completed ATF Form 4473. Question 11.a. states the following: 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.
Upon signing the form, Mark Kelly acknowledged this: I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering yes to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers yes to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers yes to question 11.l. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers Yes to question 12. I also understand that making any fals e oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punish able as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law
If Mark Kelly answered "Yes" to this question and signed this form, he has a serious problem in regards to his statement that his "intention was to give the gun to the local police after he completed the purchase". This acknowledgement is a clear violation of the law and his statement on ATF Form 4473 regarding the intent of his purchase.
The gun store where Kelly attempted the purchase saw it the same way and refused to complete the purchase to Kelly.
Many people have been prosecuted for the same actions Mark Kelly took.
One does not have to take possession of the firearm to violate the law in this case. One only needs to lie on form 4473 in an attempt to illegally purchase a firearm.
Mark Kelly's stunt is a violation of federal law and was a mockery of our 2nd Amendment rights. He disregarded the law in his attempt to steal our rights away. He has made a mockery of Federal Law and that of Pima County. I suggest that everyone report our concerns for Kelly's illegal actions to the Pima Country district attorney for investigation.
The Pima County District Attorney's office website is here.
Or, you can also post a message on the DA's Facebook page.
This was brilliant and the right thing to do.
Gosh... his dog killed a baby seal (where’s PETA?) and they are doing nothing. Why would the ‘authorities’ bother with this ?
With Eric Holder as AG?
That’s why I suggested the DA in Pima County instead. Albeit, Barbara LaWall is a Dem.
I can't copy the language from the PDF file, but the link is here: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf. See the instructions for 11.a.
His actions made him a straw buyer. File charges!
Mark Kelly’s daughter’s bull dog killed a sea lion in Laguna Beach CA yesterday. Mark Kelly was there. You can see the video at the KNBC 4 website. Kelly pulled the dog off of the sea lion after the sea lion was dead. That dog could have killed a child. If I killed a sea lion I would be facing big fines and jail time, but laws are for the little people. Special people like Mark Kelly and his family can get away with it.
No, they don't read my link above. If you are buying it as a gift, using your own money, you answer "Yes" to that question. It's right there on the form, in black and white. I'm not defending the hypocritical nature of this person, I'm simply pointing out what he did is not illegal.
To understand the structural legal problem one needs to think long and hard about just what does the 5th Amendment mean. The 5th Amendment says that government can not make a person testify against themselves. It is a very important civil right, just as the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment. When it comes to gun control, it means that laws can not be structured so as to require criminals to make statements such that they disqualify themselves from a purchase. It requires that others (and not the criminal) must be the forces that stop the criminal from getting the firearm.
Now that I have introduced the concept, we need to learn about two critical supreme court decisions. This better understanding of how “common sense” has nothing to do with the laws of the US will aid us in separating fact from fiction in many other gun control controversies.
The first Supreme Court Case (which is a shocker of a decision) involves gun control. It is Haynes v. United States.
“...The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself. In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes...”
The second US Supreme Court case is United States V. Freed.
“...To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them. The transferor must identify himself, describe the firearm, and give the name and address of the transferee, whose application must be supported by fingerprints and a photograph and a law enforcement official’s certificate identifying them as those of the transferee and stating that the weapon is intended for lawful uses. Only after the transferor’s receipt of the approved application form may the firearm transfer be legally made. A transferee does not and cannot register, though possession of an unregistered firearm is illegal. No information or evidence furnished under the Act can be used as evidence against a registrant or applicant...”
What may seem like “common sense” to Democrats when they talk about the need for a universal background check, quickly deteriorates into a classic example of either an ineffective law or something that violates criminals 5th Amendment rights. Democrats, Bloomberg, and others really need to explain to the public just how gun control and universal background checks will legally work in regards to Hayes v United States.
Mark Kelly, an irresponsible dog owner.
Let’s not forget that Sarah Brady crossed state lines to buy a hunting/sniper rifle for her son.
She got away with it.
The problem there is proving it is a ‘gift’ as legally defined by the ATF. On various places on the ATF’s website, they use the ‘gift’ example in regards to a parent or legal guardian, not a third party. Example from this FFL training program.
Remember also that the dealer agreed with this summation when they refused to complete the purchase as well. They felt Kelly was being deceptive in his intentions.
Read the language of the instructions to 11.a. Right there in the example is Mr. Brown using his own money to buy a gun as a gift for Mr. Black. No familial relationship is mentioned, nor required, but third party is specifically mentioned in the instructions. The only issue is whether or not you know, or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from owning a firearm.
If he was “re-gifting” the gun to another party I think he slides. Hell, he’d slide in any case. That being, that mark kelley-giffords is in the “celebrity” radical left wing extremist demokkkrat scumbag classification now. Or, he could have kept his mouth shut and taken the gun, 2 days later he decides he doesn’t like it and turns it in at a “buy back”. Or to actually prove his point, buy the gun directly from the original owner with no background check required. As none should be required between private individuals. Leave us alone dammit! Go train your daughters pit bull will ya?
ALSO, his wife is mentally impaired which means there shouldn’t be a firearm in the house.
okay I had to take my guns in my home to a neighbors because I had my mother move in with the diagnosis of Alzheimers Disease. Did Kelly plan to keep the gun in his house with his wife Gabby Giffords whom has significant trauma to her brain? Alzheimer’s significant changes in the brain resulting in atrophy. brain trauma by being shot in the brain, would cue brain injury. Why was he allowed to make a purchase in the first place?
I agree that in the scenario it's a grey area, primarily because the person is not the parent/guardian of the child in question, and the child is obviously under 18.
From the bottom of the training: Carla - What if a customer who qualifies to own a gun buys a firearm as a gift for someone else?
Mr. Lucas - The same rules apply. A transaction is legal as long as the person who fills out form 4473 does so truthfully and completes it as the actual purchaser. In that particular situation, we usually like to make sure they are aware of the rules associated with ATF I 5300.2. Again, you should feel comfortable denying the purchase if you think the customer is being dishonest in any way.
Carla - Suppose Bobby wanted to buy something other than a handgun, like a rifle or a shotgun? Would he still be ineligible?
Mr. Lucas - Bobby would have to be 18 or older to buy a long gun from a Federal firearms licensee. Even then, if he cant provide the appropriate photo identification, or if you believe hes misrepresenting himself, you should deny the sale.
Narrator - Keep in mind that a straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else a.k.a. the straw person to purchase the firearm and complete the paperwork. Generally, the straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because he or she is a felon or other prohibited person. However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case. Additionally make sure you familiarize yourself and anyone who purchases a firearm as a gift with the rules associated with the ATF I 5300.2 pamphlet.
Of course you are technically correct but I would like for him to have to argue this before a court as he is wanting to make criminals out of legal gun owners.
Yes, simply for the hypocrite he is.
His intention was to take possession of the firearm after paying the cost of the firearm from his own pocket.
He therefore meets the criteria of the law.
It doesn't matter when he decided that he intended to turn the firearm over to the police, the fact is that he purchased a firearm with his own money, intending to take possession of the firearm for himself. IOW, he was the "actual buyer" of the firearm as required by law.
This was never a straw purchase.
Let him argue it before a court. How many ‘straw’ purchasers have made the same argument?
..also, the gun dealer came to pretty much the same conclusion when they refused to transfer the firearm to Kelly. They believed he was dishonest in his intentions regarding the purchase.
Abundy is correct, and he would know.
He tried to make a “straw man” gun purchase, and his dog killed an endangered species. Both are federal felonies, aren’t they?
Mark Kelly is not a peasant.
And that worked out so well, eventually, for Sheriff Joe in Maricopa./sarc