Posted on 03/26/2013 3:08:34 PM PDT by yoe
An Arizona gun store cancelled a purchase made by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’s 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 Kelly’s public Facebook page, many of them not very supportive of his intentions.
The store, Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson has now rejected Kelly’s March 5th purchase, and has sent him a full refund. The decision was announced on the company’s Facebook page, in a post from the Diamondback’s owner/president Douglas MacKinley:
“While I support and respect Mark Kelly’s 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 company’s 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 ...
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.”
This.
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?
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.