Posted on 03/13/2013 6:40:07 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- Why did Mark Kelly pick a rifle for which he has yet to do a background check?
Kelly, a gun regulation advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has explained that he bought an AR-15 rifle last week because he wanted to show how “easy” it was to buy an “assault weapon.”
Yet if that were really his purpose, why did he purchase a traded-in rifle for which he must wait 20 days–and for which he must still complete a background check? Why not purchase a new rifle he could have claimed immediately?
Kelly may have completed the background check process for the pistol he bought, but not for the AR-15. On March 12 2013, after Breitbart News contacted Diamondback Police Supply, the store where Kelly bought the weapons, the store’s owner Douglas MacKinlay provided the following statement to the media:
On March 5, 2013 Mr. Mark Kelly purchased a Sig Sauer 45 caliber pistol and a Sig Sauer M400 5.56 AR style rifle from my company, Diamondback Police Supply Co. in Tucson, AZ. The rifle, having been purchased in trade from another customer, cannot be released to Mr. Kelly or any other customer for a minimum of 20 days in accordance with local ordinances. Mr. Kelly did not ask for any modifications to the rifle, nor are we making any. Once the hold period is up, Mr. Kelly must then show proper identification, complete the Federal Firearms Transfer Record (Form 4473) and successfully complete the NICS background check prior to his taking physical possession of the firearm. [emphasis added]
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The 20 day thing has to do with FFL's being required to report the transfer to them and allow the local constabulary to run a check and see if it was used in a crime.
As much as I would like to catch Kelly in an in-escapable lie, I think he has wiggle room if he ‘gifts’ the firearm, per the instructions for Question 11.a, on sheet 4:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
I’ve read the instructions and I’ve also been involved with ‘gifting’. The procedure for ‘gifting’ is to provide the funds and have the ‘giftee’ to fill out the form 4473.
If the giftee is not legally entitled (only discovered through an executed 4473), then the gift is illegal.
If he wants to ‘gift’ it, then get a damned cop down there to take possession and provide the necessary documentation.
They guy just proved how good people should not be limited in their choices.
I think it's a bit amusing that Kelly did this at a police supply shop. Not an FFL operating out of a pawn shop and possibly a bit shady, but a "public safety supply" vendor selling top-dollar firearms (note Kelly's brand of choice) to our boys in blue.
If Mark fails to pick up that AR, it's mostly because he's now hesitant to show his face there.
That's not a state-wide law (wherever this is)?
It stuck out with me because it seems a little outside the scope of a "local ordinance"... which I equate with not spitting on the sidewalk or somesuch.
next he’ll be driving around the country in an adult diaper.
Isn’t he working for Elon Musk now - at SpaceX?
“The procedure for ‘gifting’ is to provide the funds and have the ‘giftee’ to fill out the form 4473.”
Well that would be the smart way to do it...in case the giftee ever does anything irresponsible with the gun.
But, looking at the form, it does give Kelly the wiggle room to ‘gift’ the gun.
Now there are some other problems. Generally, a city council or county has to accept a ‘gift’...you don’t just walk into a police station and hand out gifts (be it vests, gloves or guns). So these things are arranged ahead of time, and certainly before the purchase. And, usually, when this type of equipment is ‘gifted’, other front end leg work is done - to determine whether or not the department needs an AR-15....and if it does, if there is a particular brand/style etc. that they use and keep parts for.
Kelly’s story is different. Rather than gifting the rifle to the police for their use, his claim makes the rifle a ‘hot potato’ that he wants to get rid of...and in his narrow mindset, the government is the natural depository for it.
So his story is still very thin, and he’s either a hypocrit or stupid. And, I would love to see a little more in depth reporting - how did he pay for it (he took possession of the .45)? Personal check? Debit card? Paid for out of his own bank account? Paid for out of PAC money? But we won’t see that.
Still, though - he has an escape hatch on the straw purchase angle.
I would say his wife is mentally impaired. Is it not true that if she is in this condition, she should not have access to any firearm,even one that belongs to her husband if they live in the same dwelling?Just asking!
I’ve literally bought dozens of weapons and to a tee, any seller that hears you aren’t the intended recipient will invariably require you have the giftee come in and fill out the form.
You have to realize that the ATF is a very capricious and arbitrary organization and while their ‘instructions’ may indicate one thing, what they are telling the sellers is a different story. They specify ridiculous abbrieviation instructions and stipulations. In many cases they require a specific ink color. Often, they treat each seller differently and make other stipluations based on the level of kickback they receive.
Finally, they (ATF) is 100% POLITICAL and blow the way of the Democrat wind. If you’ve filled out one of their forms, you’d have noticed that they’ve added ANOTHER meaningless question that you HAVE to answer...that question is whether you are of hispanic origin or not. THis is in addition to the optional ‘race’ question. Why be dat?
Of course you are correct. He would be, in effect, creating the same circumstances as the woman whose weapons her son stole after murdering her and proceeded to kill all those children.
For him to do this, is exceptionally stupid and highly dangerous to the public. I think he should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment of the public at large.
Good catch!
Maybe some govt funding should be used to study brain cell loss from too much time on orbit instead of why lesbians are fat. What the hell.............. Sometimes you just got to laugh to keep from crying. I’ve “interfaced” with quite a few astros over the years and some obviously suffered loss of brain cells. Others, still okay. Maybe they got them shaken loose when the SRB’s lit off.
No.
No one ever said dem/libs were intelligent, just persistent.
This was solely him trying to make some lameass point or maybe trying to stay in some headlines.
I’m still trying to figure out the purpose of that strange local ordinance, as it relates to traded/used firearms. Seems nonsensical to me.
Its Tucson, man. nuff said.
When travelling west, its a requirement to leave logic and common sense before crossing the Texas border.
“any seller that hears you aren’t the intended recipient will invariably require you have the giftee come in and fill out the form.”
The seller won’t know anything...the form says you can answer ‘yes’ to the question, if its a bona fide gift.
No matter what your personal experience may have been, it does not change the fact that Kelly has an escape hatch when accused (in the court of public opinion) of a straw purchase. Its a bad tree to be barking up, because it goes nowhere.
I’d rather concentrate on asking questions about his bogus story - if this was a ‘stunt’, did he film himself filling out the form? Did he photo-copy any of the paperwork? Did anyone from his PAC or whatever organization he says participated in this accompany him to the store? If the purpose of the stunt was to demonstrate how easy it was to make a purchase...why choose one with a 20 day waiting period? What exactly was the ‘stunt’ supposed to prove?...and Mr. Kelly, are you a Sig fan?
Lots of questions to ask, if a reporter wanted to go deeper...but the straw purchase angle is an absolute waste of time.
First, I think the “gift” thing shows the stupidity of the background check. If someone gives me money, and I buy the gun and hand it to him, that is illegal. If they don’t give me money, and I buy the gun and hand it to them, that is legal.
In both cases, the gun is in the hands of someone who did not go through a background check, and did not answer the questions. So, if it is legal, then why do I have to do the background check to KEEP the weapon?
On the other hand, if he is going to get PAID when he turns the gun in, then it seems he is not “gifting”, he is “re-selling”, and that would break the law.
So the legality hinges on whether his intent was to purchase the gun as a gift to the police department, or if it was to SELL the gun to the police in a buyback.
I think if we are GOING TO HAVE these forms at all, there should be a place where you would identify if you are buying as a gift, and the name of the person you are gifting to. But since they can’t do a background check on that name unless you have the information necessary, I guess that would be a waste.
Now, I’m no longer sure I even like the idea of background checks, especially when the information can get leaked to the newspapers.
Because — it seems that the law should have prevented the gun shop from providing information about Kelly. It bothers me that if I buy a gun, the gun shop will be legally allowed to tell the world the details of my purchase and background check.
You are taking great license in translating instructions that are intended as correct instructions for “gifting between individuals” and donating to an un-named entity with no individual identified or known..
To the best of my knowledge it's just local. I don't recall anything on that in the state statutes but I may be wrong.
As an aside to all of this, does it seem strange to anyone else that Kelly would be keeping the pistol which is the same basic type of weapon used against his wife, while giving up the AR? By the way, there is a piece of legislation pending that clarifies the state statute regarding what cops have to do with confiscated or found firearms (sell them to an FFL) to make sure that it also covers abandoned firearms...such as in buyback programs.
No, I’m really not.
I guarantee you with 100% certainty that nobody in the media will get any traction with the straw buy angle.
You can tell me I’m wrong when it happens.
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.