Posted on 03/26/2013 7:31:30 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
A Tucson gun store owner has decided to rescind the sale of a military-style rifle to Mark Kelly, the husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, after Kelly said he had intended the purchase to make a political point about how easy it is to obtain the kind of firearms he's lobbying Congress to ban.
Kelly's March 5 purchase of an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber handgun at Diamondback Police Supply sparked a frenzy of reaction from both sides of the debate after he posted to Facebook a photo of himself shopping.
A background check took only a matter of minutes to complete, Kelly said in the Facebook post, adding that it's scary to think people can buy similar guns without background checks at gun shows or on the Internet.
But Kelly couldn't immediately take possession of the rifle because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If a pro-life group put up an abortion clock the Leftists would go hysterical and do everything in their power to have it removed.
Don't have glasses on yet and brain is still in wake-up mode so maybe I'm not understanding the sign.
No it’s the twin towers alright, there was nothing else like them. On a perfectly clear day they could be seen from Bear Mtn. 40 miles north.
” I don’t believe the gun seller has the right to rescind the sale based on the intent...”
Nonsense! NO shoes, NO Shirt, NO Service!
Need and abortion clock.
I believe in Arizona it is perfectly legal to purchase a gun and give it as a gift. If the third party gave him the money for the gun you are correct and he committed a felony.
Not that I wouldn’t like to see that slimy fascist frog marched into a cell but I think that our little discussion here serves more to point out assinine gun laws rather than the criminality of leftists.
IMO, and I’m not a lawyer but play one on FR, The store owner could flag him as a straw purchaser and he may not EVER be able to purchase another gun.( except of course for Eric Holder) He says we don’t really need them so why not?
I have purchased firearms as presents, but I defy you to purchase one being honest about it. Dealers are extremely gun shy (hmmm) about anything that faintly smells like a straw purchase.
While in Phoenix I bought a shotgun for my son, to do so, we had to fill out the forms in his name, so that the sale was officially to him. I simply paid for it.
IF they were honest, they would show how many of those gun deaths were suicides, how many were accidents, how many were criminals shot by criminals, how many were criminals shot by cops, and how many were innocent victims shot by criminals or cops. You would then see that the number of deaths of innocent victims from gunshot wounds is a small fraction of the total number of gun-related deaths. The largest number of gun deaths (over half the total) were suicides.
As a former FFL holder, I can assure that this is not the definition of a "straw buyer". IF a buyer uses his own money to buy a gun and then gives it as a gift to someone else that is legally qualified to own it, that is not a straw purchase. If another person gave Mr. Kelly the money to buy the gun (presumably because the first person could not legally buy the gun himself), and then Mr. Kelly bought the gun while representing that he was the true buyer of the weapon, that would make him a "straw buyer".
HAAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I know exactly what you mean and the law is basically splitting hairs between straw purchases and gifts. I live in Texas and have purchased a gun as a gift for my mother, who at the time was a Texas resident. If I sell or give a gun to someone who is also a resident of Texas, there is no paperwork required. To give a gun to someone in another state a transfer with background check is required. Had I given her the gun while she was a resident of another state, it would have been legal to be “on loan” but ownership could not be transfered until she became a Texas resident, or completed an FFL transfer.
The whole point of all this of course is not to prevent crime or guns in the hands of criminals but rather to put me in a tenuous legal situation regarding ownership of the firearm. I can only imagine a gun store owners fear of liability from navigating convoluted gun regs. Ain’t our laws grand.
That statement is the furthest thing from politically correct that I have ever seen in my entire life :D
Well played, sir, well played.
The owner can’t take the chance BATF will come at him for knowingly aiding a “straw purchase.” Maybe this was the plan all along. Buy the gun, announce you are giving it away, then charge the SELLER with a crime! I think we all know Kelly would never be charged but the owner’s FFL would be in serious jeopardy.
Agree. More info came out since my first comment.
But I still say the seller should not be able to rescind a sale made because he does not like what the buyer is going to do with the gun (as long as all laws have been obeyed and are expected to be obeyed).
Nothing wrong with your brain.
The dingbats who put up the sign deliberately made it as opaque and ambiguous as they could to advance their agenda.*
Why try to understand low-information propaganda?
*gang banger deaths, criminal homicides, suicides, people defending themselves and their families, accidental hunting accidents, everything gets thrown into the big propaganda pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.