Posted on 03/27/2013 6:57:08 AM PDT by OzarkSailor
“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 [sic] for his personal use,” Douglas MacKinlay, owner of Diamondback Police Supply, said in the post.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
why do they need to know the race, ethnicity?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BATF needs to ascertain whether there is ever a necessity of affirmative action subsidized fire arms purchases.
They should take away his dog as well.
He is clearly not a responsible dog owner, demonstrating very little control over the animal.
He can’t be trusted with a gun if he can’t control his dog from killing a seal.
Probably great fun for the dog but, completely and wholly irresponsible dis discipline over his animal.
He announced he was a straw buyer.
Simple as that.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least these days.
Except when it isn't. Really, read the instructions on page 4 of the form I linked in post 7. It explains why he's not guilty of anything other than being an asshat hypocrite.
Well it is refreshing to see her finger no where near the trigger
The store owner said that Kelly had not filled out the 4473, or had the background check done.
The gun has to sit for 20 days before anyone can buy it. Similar to when you sell an item to a pawn shop.
Most likely, Kelly had put down a deposit to hold the gun, which was refunded.
“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 Form 4473 and NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] background check required of Mr. Kelly before he could take possession of this firearm,” MacKinlay said in the statement.”
No he didn’t. He announced that he was purchasing the gun as a gift.
No, he announced he was going to give it to a third party.
“You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party.”
Straight off of form 4473.
Kelly never filled out the 4473 anyway, as the store owner said.
Thank you.
Nothing will be done anyway. Libs are protected from their own stupidity.
And his daughter’s dog is more a danger than my gun. Did you see the heartbreaking video of her dog killing a baby sea lion on the beach in cali? disgusting.
Thank you for all the links. Perhaps you should find something better to do than to track every single story on this forum, if do don’t want to read it then don’t click on the blue link.
/r
It makes no difference. A "straw purchase" does not care who gave you the money or if it is your money. If you buy it with intention of giving it to someone else you are a straw purchaser!!!!!!!!!!!!
So much for ever buying a firearm as a gift, then.
There are people here on FR defending this publicity-seeking idiot, saying he did nothing illegal. They probably defend his dog for killing a baby sea lion, too.
I'm not defending this idiot for being a hypocrite, but I will defend him on this. He did not break the law. Period. Read the form in link 7, read the instructions on page 4 of the form. What he did, or stated he was going to do, was not illegal. Actually, according to the gun shop itself, he hadn't even completed the form for the rifle, yet, because he couldn't purchase it at the time due to a waiting period on used guns (to determine if they've been stolen).
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.