Mark Kelly Won't Get His AR-15, as Tucson Gun Store One-Ups Kelly in Publicity Stunts

kelly-ar.jpg
Facebook
Mark Kelly, buying an AR-15 rifle.
Tucson gun store Diamondback Police Supply found out how to beat the Mark Kelly's anti-assault-rifle publicity stunt -- an anti-anti-assault-rifle publicity stunt.

Kelly bought the rifle, claiming that he was just experiencing the process of buying one, but now the gun shop says it's actually not going to give it to Kelly, since Kelly claimed he was going to turn over the firearm to Tucson PD once he acquired it.

See also:
-Gabrielle Giffords' Husband Mark Kelly Bought an AR-15 Rifle

"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," Diamondback Police Supply owner Douglas MacKinlay says on Facebook. "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 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."

If that wasn't clear evidence of a publicity stunt, here's the rest of the statement:

"The Sig Sauer rifle will be donated to the Arizona Tactical Officers Association, where it will be raffled off to generate funds the association can use to purchase much needed tactical equipment for the organization's members. The A.T.O.A. represents the SWAT and special-response officers of the state's law enforcement community, who regularly place their lives on the line to protect the residents of this state.

Additionally, Diamondback Police Supply will make a $1,295 contribution (the selling price of the M400 rifle) to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, which teaches children, in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. The emphasis of the program is on child safety, something that is important to all of us and at the core of the current debate on gun control."

Now, a guy who wants to show he doesn't like gun-control measures is, in fact, preventing someone from getting a gun, while the guy who was trying to show that it's so easy to get an assault rifle doesn't get an assault rifle.

Hmph.


My Voice Nation Help
52 comments
yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

Diamondback and the ATOA are somehow interconnected...I know people that represent both entities simultaneously.

ATOA is nothing more than a milktoast version of the much heftier (and reputable) NTOA.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

I think this boils down to nothing more than a business owner exercising his right to refuse service.  The gun store is not impeding on Mr Kelly's right to purchase a firearm.  They are simply saying he can't purchase the rifle from them. 

Kelly's true intention was never to turn the rifle over to TPD for destruction.  HE got caught being a hypocrite and didn't have the balls to admit his true intentions.  He's the same guy who exploits his wife's tragedy for personal gain.  He's a shameful individual.

cassityg32
cassityg32

So AFTER he purchases the weapon & AFTER it becomes public THEN (over a week later) the gun shop they decide they are not going to give it to him & proceed to refund his $. Had it not become public knowledge they would not have known who would actually be getting the gun & the purchase would have gone through. Boy, what a responsable gun salesman. Way to go

sliperymike
sliperymike

when I bought my first rifle at K-mart in 1980,all the questions were about whether I was a communist and if I was "ADDICTED" to marijuana,not coke heroin or alcohol,just weed.

well at the time I only smoked weed  on weekends when I went shooting and out riding my harley.so I answered "No".

my friend was an alcoholic and liked to go shooting also.......but after just one beer,he was pointing his 357 at his head,looking down the barrel to see if it was chambered,with the hammer halfway back on a single action revolver!

I didn't go shooting much with boozers after that.

the point of this ramble is we broke several FEDERAL laws and lived to brag about it!

valleynative
valleynative

It's not (just) a publicity stunt.  It would be a violation of federal law to sell the gun to him knowing that he plans to give it to somebody else.  That's what we call a "straw buyer".  The 4473 form that the owner mentions includes a statement that the purchaser is the end user.  Mark Kelly would have to falsify the form in order to make the purchase, and, no doubt, the feds would slap his wrist and prosecute the dealer for selling to him.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

lol love when gun store owners refuse to sell guns..."we stand for the 2nd Amendment..but ignore the First!" lol yea, i can really take them seriously...

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@yourproductsucks  I  agree completely with the first part 100%, the second part......i cant really say. either you may be right (which I personally dont think is true) or Mark pulled a poorly planned test of the system that wasnt thought out or done very well. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks Yeah, I suppose.  At least he isn't exploiting racial discrimination and profiling, death in the jails and a fake tough-guy attitude (but doesn't recall being a tough guy under oath) for his personal gain.  At least he doesn't stand by without comment as his employees hi-five betating someone like Marty Atencio nearly to death.  At least he doesn't allow mollestors to continue abusing their victims as he diverts resources from sex crimes to dog-and-pony show immigration enforcement.  At least he doesn't invite c-list actors into his organization and allow them to bust a tank through someone's wall to make a cock-fighting arrest in another dog-and-pony show enforcemetn action.  At least he doesn't do any of those tings, because that would really make for a shameful individual.  Don't you think?

valleynative
valleynative

@cassityg32 What became public was the fact that Kelly was actually buying the rifle on somebody else's behalf (the police).  The 4473 form that the owner said he didn't want to have to fill out has a checkbox that reads:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?

Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s)to you.

Kelly's blunder was in admitting that he was a straw buyer.

cassityg32
cassityg32

@valleynative No one who intends to buy a gun for another person is going to fill out that form honestly.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative lol he was giving it to the cops, hardly a private seller..but if you are so concerned with straw purchasing, you should get behind the Dems plans to strengthen those penalties! Do you just have beef with anyone who dares stand against gun violence or what? Are you incapable of having the discussion, or just dont want to? I like guns too man, but im not going to sit idly by and do or say nothing...its time we took a stand, came together, and figured out a solution...the NRA's proposals by the way are asinine and all they are doing is campaigning with fear mongering to drive up their profits (or are you not aware whos on the Board of the NRA?)

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01  You should learn more about the Bill of Rights.   It's not possible for a store owner to violate your first amendment rights. The first amendment only protects you from censorship by the government. 

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative @cassityg32 lol uh, please cite one case showing its considered a straw purchase if one buys a gun and turns it over to the police...sorry, but if that cant be provided, i have to go with common sense here...since the cops can legally purchase their own guns it wouldnt qualify as a straw purchase..

cassityg32
cassityg32

@valleynative @cassityg32 first of all I remember the story I read was about how easy it was for him to obtain a firearm. When they started calling him a hypocrite is when It came out that he was intending to hand it over to the police. Secondly, he admitted he was going to turn it over to the police quite a while ago & just now the gun shop owner states he is now not going to give him the gun & intends on refunding him the money. I have to wonder why he waited instead of immediately doing this as soon as he found out. It looks to me as if he would have sold this gun regardless but got in hot water once it became public or lost customers, something other than ethical reasons or not wanting to break the law changed his mind.

valleynative
valleynative

@cassityg32  Of course not.  It would be impossible to fill it out honestly if you're buying for somebody else.   Most people who do so have more sense than to tell the media that they're planning to break the law.  If the seller knows that you're not filling out the form honestly they can't sell to you or the feds will prosecute them.

MandyMountain
MandyMountain

@david_saint01 @valleynative Sorry, David. I believe he is correct. Kelly was attempting a straw purchase. That is already a crime.


valleynative
valleynative

Could you explain what you mean by suggesting that I have a beef with people who are against gun violence, and that I'm "incapable of having the discussion"?

That's really pretty dishonest, offensive, and a pretty lame debate tactic, to boot.

Am I against mom and apple pie because I'm familiar with the 4473 and don't just blindly believe what a "reporter" says?

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 The law doesn't say anything about private buyers.  It asks you to check a box saying that you're buying it for your own use. 

Sure.  I'd like to see penalties for straw purchases tougher.  Why would you assume I wouldn't?

I don't care a whit what the NRA says or wants.  I understand the law and the Constitution and know enough about gun crime to know that none of the proposals are worth the effort.  It's all just political posturing.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative @david_saint01 lol you missed the point. They are refusing service because of ones words or beliefs. Hence, they violate the spirit of the First amendment, while championing the Second. This isnt the first time a store owner has done it either. Now, im not saying they committed a crime or violated someones rights, but rather just made themselves out to be hypocrites is all..

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 "Straw purchase" isn't really the correct term.  Apparently that's actually defined as buying for somebody who isn't allowed to purchase firearms.  It IS, however, illegal to buy a gun on behalf of anybody else, including the police.   More specifically to this case, it is illegal for a dealer to knowingly sell to somebody who is buying on behalf of somebody else.

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 David, I'm a hardcore 2nd Amendment supporter, and you'll also find me arguing for gay rights, women's rights, etc.  Don't overgeneralize.  It' makes you look small and you lose the moral high ground.

Likely somebody pointed out that selling a gun to somebody who has stated publicly that he's really buying it on behalf of somebody else would be a violation of federal law. 

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@cassityg32 likely the case, he get pressure from his "peers" and changed his mind...this is what im talking about...these guys appear to have this big hard on for the 2nd Amendment, but want to limit it to just those that agree with them...cant have dissent in the ranks! My favorite part however, is anytime a hardcore 2nd Amendment supporter tells me im not fighting for my rights, i ask them their views on gay marriage, abortion, etc lol...of course they try and say thats different, but it isnt..I fight for ALL rights, not just the ones that appeal to me the most..;.they should try it sometime

cassityg32
cassityg32

@valleynative @cassityg32 no clearly it's not. It states in the law you can not buy for someone who can not by law possess a weapon. I've had family buy guns for family/fiends and state the intent but the sale went through since the gun was not going to someone who was bared from carrying a weapon.

valleynative
valleynative

@cassityg32  But still illegal.  "Straw purchase" is just one form if illegal purchase, and the term is used loosely to refer to any form of purchase for another, any form of which is illegal.

cassityg32
cassityg32

@MandyMountain A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL).1 A straw purchaser is a person with a clean background who purchases firearms specifically on behalf of a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm because he or she is a convicted felon, domestic violence misdemeanants, juvenile, mentally ill individual or other federally or state-defined prohibited person.2 The straw purchaser violates federal law by making a false statement to the FFL about a material fact by lying on ATF Form 4473 (the firearm transaction record) or presenting false identification in connection with the purchase.3

NOT A STRAW PURCHASE unles you are buying on behalf of someone who is legally not allowed to own a gun

valleynative
valleynative

Do you know that about 2/3 of all fatal shootings are suicides?  There's not much benefit to being able to trace the ownership in that case.  The size of the magazine doesn't matter at all, and rifles are almost never used.  What is it that you really want to accomplish?  If you want to decrease gun deaths, improve mental health care.  If you want to make it less likely that you'll be attacked by an armed criminal, encourage citizens to carry.  If you want protection from mass murders, you need to look into what percentage of them use fire or explosives, rather than guns.

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 But why does "dialog" mean talking about the things that you want to talk about?  Why not mental health care instead of silly things like banning rifles that are almost never used in crimes?   Why not encouraging the use of gun safes instead of making us ask the feds for permission to sell our guns to our relatives?

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative i asked if you were incapable of the discussion, not that you are. FYI  always liked your posts in the past, not going to stop now just because we dont agree on this issue...im just stubborn on this one lol, i admit it..but thats because ive had guns pulled on me, ive been shot at by accident by a drunk fucking retard trying to look cool..ive seen runts that know they cant fight talk shit, then pull a gun...feel me? I want dialogue on the issue, even if it ruffles feathers.

cassityg32
cassityg32

@valleynative @cassityg32 well you just said 2 different things. Does the law NOT forbid it or have you broke the law.. How did he break any laws by purchasing a gun, honestly filling out the form & (if sale went through) giving it to police....who can by law have a gun???

cassityg32
cassityg32

@valleynative @cassityg32 As it states clearly NO YOU HAVEN'T. Not unless you're buying it for another individual who CANNOT possess a gun legaly. I have members of my family who have bought guns for friends/family & stated it on the form & since the person they intended to give the gun to was legaly ok to have a gun the sale went through. What's so hard to understand?

valleynative
valleynative

@yourproductsucks  If you had published that fact in the national media, it probably would have been a factor.  You're welcome to buy a gun for yourself and THEN decide to give it as a gift.  It's a technicality, but one that the feds wouldn't hesitate to use to prosecute a gun dealer.

valleynative
valleynative

@cassityg32 That's a definition of "straw purchase", not the law that forbids it.  There's a difference.  I quoted from the form earlier.  If you're buying the gun to give to somebody else, and you submit a 4473 form, you've broken the law.

cassityg32
cassityg32

@valleynative @david_saint01 Then you are well aware that form is NOT the law correct? Just in case Here is what it states:

A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL).1 A straw purchaser is a person with a clean background who purchases firearms specifically on behalf of a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm because he or she is a convicted felon, domestic violence misdemeanants, juvenile, mentally ill individual or other federally or state-defined prohibited person.2 The straw purchaser violates federal law by making a false statement to the FFL about a material fact by lying on ATF Form 4473 (the firearm transaction record) or presenting false identification in connection with the purchase.3

That being the case, this was not a straw purchase. I have doubts that he police are unable legally to obtain a gun.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @david_saint01 I get that...i guess i was leaning more towards "we support the 2nd amendment, but not for those that dont agree with us!"...sure the owner has the right to refuse service, but he should have done that from the beginning then is my opinion...more likely, he caught heat from his peers and make the change...again, perfectly legal, just doesnt help their cause in my book..lol i dont pretend to know everything, just my own views..in this case im probably wrong, but i stand by my views regardless..

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@david_saint01 Don't forget that the 1st Amendment also protects freedom of association which has been interpted to mean both the freedom to associate with those whom you choose AND the freedom to disassociate with those who you choose not to be associated with.  I think that it was the store's right to declare that it did not wnat to associate with Mr. Kelly or his political/policy beliefs AS LONG AS the store's declaration or decision isn't based on an impermissible reason like race, gender, religion, etc.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative it makes me think hypocrite when I see people thumping their chests in self righteousness for 2nd amendment rights, when they dont seem to care about someone elses 2nd Amendment rights due to their views..it is hypocritical in my view. They only want to stand for the rights of those that agree with them, not the 2nd amendment right in general as it pertains to others that dont agree. And lately, some have gotten downright nasty about it with vile threats and what not..(not you bud, just in general..take CO for instance..someone wrote a lawmaker and threatened to rape his 2 year old because he was for their new tough laws! Another threatened anothers daughter..its repulsive)

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative I've now looked at the form and the statute and disagree with your conclusion. The front of the form states, “Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.” The instructions state, “You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES…However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own mony to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a.” Mr. Kelly did not purchase the firearm "on behalf of" TPD -meaning they did not ask, request or invite him to purchase the weapon on their behalf. Apparently they didn't even know of his plans. As a result, this is more like the example in the instructions - he was buying it with his own money as a "gift" to TPD and so he was the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative Thanks.  The ATF publication is helpful to understanding the issue, but do you have the cite to the underlying federal statute? 

valleynative
valleynative

@JohnQ.Public@cassityg32 The actual law being broken by the purchaser is making a false statement on a federal form.

 From the Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide published by ATF:

... purchaser
violates Federal law by making
false statements on Form 4473 to the
licensee with respect to the identity of
the actual purchaser of the firearm, as
well as the actual purchaser's residence
address and date of birth. The
licensee selling the firearm under these
circumstances also violates Federal law
if the licensee is aware of the false
statements on the form. It is immaterial
that the actual purchaser and the straw
purchaser are residents of the State in
which the licensee's business premises
is located, are not prohibited from receiving
or possessing firearms, and
could have lawfully purchased firearms
from the licensee. 

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@cassityg32 thank you lol...i fail to understand how someone purchasing a gun and promising to turn it over to law enforcement qualifies as a "straw purchase". Sorry, but to me thats just a bullshit excuse to cover for the hypocrisy of denying someone the right to buy a gun because of their views...just be honest about it and move on.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@cassityg32 You keep saying "Read the law."  You're the one asserting that the law makes it illegal - cite it.  Prove up your point.  I don't know that it is or isn't a straw purchase in this case, but instead of simply assuring us that it is a violation of the law, demonstrate it by quoting the law you're citing.

valleynative
valleynative

@cassityg32 Whether or not it technically fits a formal definition of "straw purchase" ( I thought it was an informal term without a legal definition), it is still illegal.  Read more of the law.  Read the text of the 4473 form.  You cannot buy for somebody else.

cassityg32
cassityg32

@valleynative @david_saint01

THE LAW STATES

A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL).1 A straw purchaser is a person with a clean background who purchases firearms specifically on behalf of a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm because he or she is a convicted felon, domestic violence misdemeanants, juvenile, mentally ill individual or other federally or state-defined prohibited person.2 The straw purchaser violates federal law by making a false statement to the FFL about a material fact by lying on ATF Form 4473 (the firearm transaction record) or presenting false identification in connection with the purchase.3

valleynative
valleynative

It may not be "nice" to discriminate against people with different political views, but it's not hypocritical.  The Bill of Rights plays no role here.

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 Read the law.  Giving it to the police means that you are buying it for somebody else and that is the definition of "straw buyer".  The law doesn't distinguish between a gun runner and the police.  It's still illegal for the dealer to sell it to a person who is not the end user.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative @david_saint01 lol you are reaching just a tad with the straw purchasing argument, because as i said the stated person he was giving it to was the police! thats not reselling it, thats giving it away to a LEA...and you are right, you do have the right to refuse service..and i have the right to expose the blatant hypocrisy of it

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 No, the right has nothing at all to do with discrimination.   I have every right to refuse to deal with you if I don't like your opinions.

And in this case, the dealer could have been prosecuted for selling to a straw buyer, so any free speech point is moot.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative @david_saint01 again, he is refusing service (as are others) because of either their views, or who they voted for...its the spirit of the right, that we all should be able to express ourselves freely without discrimination for it. I get what you are saying, but you arent getting what im saying..its the principle of the whole thing..this store owner probably caught heat for selling to someone who opposes the product, and in turn decided to rescind the sale because of that. Whats next, not being able to buy toilet paper because i might say it contributes to waste? see my point? 

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 No, you've misunderstood the spirit of the first amendment.  It is about nothing other than preventing the government from stifling expression.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...