Skip to comments.Rejected: Gun Store Cancels AR-15 Purchase by Gabby Giffords’ Husband
Posted on 03/26/2013 3:08:34 PM PDT by yoe
An Arizona gun store cancelled a purchase made by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffordss husband Mark Kelly. On March 5th, Kelly visited Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, selected an AR-15 style rifle, a .45 caliber handgun, and some high capacity magazines, completed a background check and paid for his purchases.
Within days, the story (broke nationally) and Kelly claimed that his purchases were made to highlight how easy it is to get a gun. He also added that he intended to turn the AR-15 into the Tucson Police. The story sparked almost 4,000 comments to Mark Kellys public Facebook page, many of them not very supportive of his intentions.
The store, Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson has now rejected Kellys March 5th purchase, and has sent him a full refund. The decision was announced on the companys Facebook page, in a post from the Diamondbacks owner/president Douglas MacKinley:
While I support and respect Mark Kellys 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons other then for his personal use. In light of this fact, I determined that it was in my companys best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store to complete the Federal From 4473 and NICS background check required of Mr. Kelly before he could take possession this firearm. A full refund was sent to Mr. Kelly, via express mail, on Thursday of last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
It can’t be denied. Some people aren’t mentally fit to own firearms.
Oh no, Mark won’t have a rifle to turn into the police anymore.
Store could have just come out and said he was making a straw purchase. He was. And so, violating the law.
As he falsified a legal document, he should now get a summons to appear in court
Only if he filled out the 4473 already. That is done at pickup usually.
Reading the letter from the gun shop, the conclusion I made was that they were avoiding a straw man purchase. It made clear that the reason for rejection was that the gun was destined for someone other than the person filling the 4473.
If he signed the background check form his statements indicate he was committing a felony. Time to turn in the .45 he also bought.
he was making a straw purchase...
Agreed. He was. And didn’t Bloomberg and his flying monkeys do the exact same thing a while back? AFAIK, that’s a serious FELONY...
All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.
As Kelly was not buying the gun for himself: therefore could not have passed the background check .
I know, they hinted at it. they did not come out in plain english and just say it was a straw man purchase. They should have. and they should have made a point to say such purchases are ILLEGAL as well.
Fully embarrass and also fully make people aware of exactly what his quickly-made, badly-constructed lie (because he only said this AFTER being discovered, he wasn’t going to do this until discovered) meant in legal terms.
You’re right, they should have. I got the feeling they wanted to extricate themselves with zero damage.
IIRC, it was a used rifle someone sold them, and the store had to wait approx. 20 days before they could legally resell it. If Kelly said “hold on to it, “I’ll be back in a month to pick it up” that might be different.
I think he’s using the media whore loophole.
And using your wife....disgusting...but I'm sure you're getting paid.
No, he wasn't making a straw purchase unless the cops asked him to buy it. You can buy a firearm with the intent to give it away so long as it's not to a person you know to be disqualified. The store should have just said "You don't believe in civil rights for others, therefore you get none yourself. We don't sell to liberal dickheads."
Chaz, or Spazz?
Can I get me a huntin’ license here?
Dogs should be banned.
Now there’s one of those “Log Cabin” types.
That sea lion hating POS can go do you know what to himself.
Kelly lied on his Federal From 4473. He said the rifle was for his personal use, when in fact it was NOT, and was never intended for his personal use. Kelly’s intended use of the firearm was not personal, it was for another end involving propaganda outside of the 2nd amendment process
on which Kelly presumably relied to purchase his firearm. He also falsely swore that Form 4473 was true, under the penalties of perjury.
You bet Kelly should be prosecuted for falsifying his Form 4473.
Diamondback was absolutely correct in refunding Kelly his money. He lied on his Form 4473 ( a sworn document). Kelly is therefore a potential felon.
Kelly should be prosecuted and his right to purchase firearms of any sort prohibited then, as a felon after he is prosecuted and convicted.
well i would give them some kudos for it, i just wish they’d have really exposed him flat out and his lie after being publicly caught then fabricating a lie.
OH my gosh, that is absolutely horrible. Mentally disturbed King Kelly helping to murder endangered sea lions now. And armed on top of it.
He doesn’t even have an AZ DL, after claiming to live here in AZ. (He forgot to bring it to the gun shop and didn’t even have a valid one for AZ.)
The peons have to go get an AZ DL after a certain number of days of living here — but rules are just for the little people.
Mark Kelly-Giffords has zero credibility.
“No, he wasn’t making a straw purchase unless the cops asked him to buy it. You can buy a firearm with the intent to give it away so long as it’s not to a person you know to be disqualified.”
The act was legal - insofar as what he claimed he would do with it.
Revoking the sale was sensible, though, as a seller is expected to not sell if the buyer seems suspicious ... and a claim that he was buying a >$1000 legal item just so he could hand it over to police sure doesn’t pass the “sane & legal” smell test.
Yeh between exploiting his poor incapacitated wife, Buying an assault rifle as a straw buyer and letting his pitt bull kill a baby Sea Lion I’d say Mark Kelly’s credibility is pretty much in the sh$$#er. :-)
And the store would be immediately sued for violation of customer's civil rights, regardless of the merits. It was the right move to use BATFE rules as an overt reason to deny the transaction. The seller is not required to hold a trial and to determine facts with absolute certainty. A prima facie suspicion is sufficient. Now the store is on the right side of the law.
I don’t think political affiliation is considered a protected class for commercial non-discrimination.
That would be for the court to decide. Per Wikipedia:
Discrimination is the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, language, disability, age, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
That potentially includes everything. But, as I said, merits of the case are irrelevant if they use the lawsuit as a PR stunt or as a threat. For example, they can demand a settlement that puts the gun store out of business; gun stores are not casinos, they don't swim in cash. The owner had a duty to protect his business and his employees, and, IMO, he fulfilled that duty in the safest way possible.
The store did the right thing legally & morally.
Cannot control his own dog? That makes him a dumb ax.
Ha! You remember that, too.
Will someone find a good legal definition of a “straw purchase.”
Normally it is meant that a “cutout” or “intermediate” is the buyer for someone else. Now, does it mean that if the buyer fills out forms indicating that the weapon is bought for himself/family, and he deliberately sells (leaving out “giving” for the moment) to someone else (who did not go through a background check), is he committing a crime?
Spouses of certain people who were shot (news worthy, not commoners like us), have a tendency to overcompensate for that tragedy by going into total opposition to the weapon, not the shooter.
Cases in point. Sara Brady (James Brady, Reagan’s press secy)
Carolyn Murphy’s husband, killed by Colin Ferguson? on a subway train (a racial black on white killing of at least 6 people). She is now a wacked out U.S. Representative from NY
Mark Kelly - Rep. Gabby Gifford’s husband.
and a couple whose names I have forgotten. Maybe Yoko Ono re John Lenon.
Notice that in the Murphy case, the shooter was close enough to have stabbed many of the people he shot, as was the killer of John Lenon.
The same for Loughner, the shooter of Gifford, and John Hinckley, the shooter of Brady, several law enforcement officers and Pres. Reagan.
Instead of trying to keep nuts from getting guns, or even being on the streets when they are known threats, these people take the easy way out, yet they are willing to jeopardize the lives of potential crime victims in the process.
This is not “concern” for people. It is exactly the opposite, a disdain for them.
There has to be a psychologic term for this type of person though I cannot think of it right now unless it is a “projectionist”.
on the form its a yes/no that you are buying it for you.
Straw purchase. The useful idiot slipped up.
Kudos to Mr. Douglas MacKinley.
Try Google or Bing
Mark Giffords (maiden name Kelly) is despicable.
How many laws did the shooting hoax break? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YO0al2ZtDw