General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGun shop blocks Mark Kelly’s right to buy AR-15, citing political ‘intent’
The owner of a gun shop in Tucson, Arizona on Monday refused to hand over an AR-15 military-style rifle that Mark Kelly purchased in order to demonstrate how easy it was to obtain assault weapons.
In a statement posted to Facebook, Diamondback Police Supply owner Doug MacKinlay said that he was blocking the former astronauts Second Amendment right because he questioned the political intent behind the purchase.
22 hours ago
Statement of Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply Co., Inc.
While I support and respect Mark Kellys 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 companys 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.
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 organizations members. The A.T.O. A. represents the SWAT and Special Response officers of the states 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 $1295.00 contribution (the selling price of the M400 rifle) to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program that teaches children, in pre-K through 3rd 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, stated Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply Co., Inc.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Diamondback-Police-Supply/143341839017998
Kelly, who is the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), said that he had purchased the rifle to show how easy it was to pass a background check. The effort was part of his push for more gun control in response to his wifes shooting and other recent mass shootings.
A weapon similar to the Sig Sauer M400 was used last year to gun down 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut.
..............
more:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/26/gun-shop-blocks-mark-kellys-right-to-buy-ar-15-citing-political-intent/
bowens43
(16,064 posts)sarisataka
(18,770 posts)as a retired navy Captain, he would be a member of the retired reserve and is subject to recall to duty until the age of 60 IIRC
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Yeah, that was the founders intent.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)fork over emergency birth control to women: which is a violation of their basic human rights. Nowhere does it say in the constitution that I can discriminate against you regardless of age, sex or religion, but the Illinois Supreme Court can.
We have laws that are supposed to protect We The People from this kind of horseshit and misogyny, but it still happens with the court's decision.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/24/pro-life-pharmacists-win-huge-victory-in-illinois-decision/
Now put it into wider perspective. A gun shop owner can discriminate against somebody for political reasons, i.e. they are a dirty LibRul Obamee voter, and get away with it.
I'm not for the proliferation of guns in the USA. There are already too many in circulation. This, if let to stand, would set a dangerous precedent where only Gawrd-fearing GOP supporters could own a firearm.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The gun shop owner screwed up.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)not discriminatory.
Not supporting the shops decision but that is just the way it is.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)What if you walked into the shop wearing an Obama t-shirt, while I had a rMoney t-shirt on?
Who do you believe that he will deny service to under the guise of "political intent", and would it then be legal?
Women have been denied emergency contraception on religious grounds, which IMHO isn't legal, so where does the discrimination stop?
former9thward
(32,077 posts)The 2nd A is a restriction on government not private business. Nothing in federal or state law prohibits discrimination based on politics.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)To deny somebody based on their political views s just as heinous as denying it on their religious ones.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)It points out exceptions to the general principle. Some states and localities, such as DC, have made political discrimination illegal but most have not.
http://about.bloomberglaw.com/practitioner-contributions/the-eighth-circuit-differentiates-between/
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)people who should not be.
So long as they're not violating federal antidiscrimination laws (race,, religion, national origin, etc), no business is required to sell anything to anybody. There are only a handful of states (5 or 6 I think) with laws that protect political affiliation from discrimination in business. Only two do so explicitly, and but there are a few others (like California) that simply put blanket bans on discrimination of any sort.
Arizona is not one of those states.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I thought most states had laws that protect against political discrimination.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The gun store can not discriminate against a purchaser for being in a class of people identified in federal civil rights laws, but outside the specific scope of such laws the gun shop is not the government, and thus is not bound to honor anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.
If you owned a print shop you would be free, for example, to decline to print pro-gun fliers a customer wanted. That would not be a violation of the customer's 1st Amendment rights.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Plus I was wrong and thought most states had laws to protect against political discrimination. I see it is just the opposite of what I thought and most don't.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)He claimed he was going to turn it over to the police. That makes him a 'straw' purchaser which is a felony. The gun shop acted properly.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I'm allowed to destroy all the firearms I care to. And that's what turning them in is.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)But you asked for the law
First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) prohibits any person:
In connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition.
Subject to limited exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) imposes criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, upon any person who:
Knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by [federal firearms law] to be kept in the records of a person licensed under [federal firearms law] or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of [federal firearms law].
Kelly knowingly made a false statement to the FFL dealer on form 4473. He said he was buying the gun for himself. If I was a gun shop owner I would not touch this with a 10 foot pole either.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)And his use (as a political prop) was a legal use.
I agree that the gun store does not HAVE TO complete the transaction, as a matter of the gun seller's choice. He is allowed to discriminate in this case.
But to suggest that any law mandates or even suggests that he should do so that is wrong.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)He said he was going to turn it over to the police. That means a false statement was made on form 4473. The gun shop owner was being set up. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/markkelly.asp
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...that doesn't automatically make his first statement on paper false.
However, the seller seems only to have objected to the political leanings that happened to differ from his own.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Common in the North American NRA gun nut.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)I notice you ignored that. And just went to name calling which is all you have.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Are you self-identifying as a paranoid NRA gun nut, just like the shop owner?
former9thward
(32,077 posts)He would have been accused of knowingly selling to a straw purchaser. Not even a close call.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Or do you suspect the police department would be unable to pass the required federal background check?
former9thward
(32,077 posts)He stated under oath he was buying the firearm for himself. Just because later on, when he was caught, he suddenly says the "police" when he is not under oath means nothing. He could say prohibited person Joe Smith two minutes later. Once it is known he was lying on Form 4473 then he could be planning on selling it a prohibited person. Again not a close call at all for the gun shop owner.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Form 4473 is a federal construct, so federal law rules. And federal law forbids gun buyers from making false statements "likely to deceive with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale."
So sure, you could say this reads like a straw purchase. But there's a legal requirement that evidence could be introduced that a prohibited person ended up with a gun. In other words, he might be lying on the form, but not materially.
Don't believe me, read US v Polk: "If the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability under a straw purchase theory does not attach." or US v Ortiz: "Straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser ... uses a lawful 'straw man' purchaser ... to obtain a firearm."
And this is, as noted elsewhere, why ATF agents are frequently hampered in attempts to prosecute straw purchasers.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)No. Do I think given the facts we know that the gun shop owner would be indicted or convicted? No. But when you realize that a customer is playing games with you then you better play safe especially when your business is under increased scrutiny. If you have to look up SC decisions to see if your actions are justified it is time to take another path.
Robb
(39,665 posts)This is not complicated.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)"change your mind" after walking out of the store and sell to anyone you want. This is why the ATF couldn't arrest the straw buyers that were selling to smugglers. That's what Fast and Furious was all about. It all depends on when he said he was going to turn it over to police.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... are Federal Law.
The store owner was right to get himself out of a potential setup. There have been a lot of FFLs that have been abused for lesser causes.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)straw purchasers? They know who is doing it, they had a list and presented it to the US Attorney. Read up on Fast and Furious. More important, read the Esquire article on Fast and Furious.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... to do with Arizona law? You know, he kinda works for the Federal DOJ?
I guess you don't know. Go back and review Civics 101 and reread that Fast and Furious thing and get back with us.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Stating that I will do A does not deny my intent to do B, regardless of whether B is stated or not... unless one is an idiot-- and idiots may of course use any logical fallacy they wish to self-better validate their "win"
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)are also the ones who have no problem denying law-abiding Americans a gun.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Is there an ordinance that says that to sell the gun, it has to be for "personal use?" And then Kelly's use would still be "personal."
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And therefore illegal.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)change your mind and sell to someone else. You can buy 100 guns, as long as you say they are for personal use, then change your mind and legally sell to someone else. This is why the ATF couldn't arrest straw buyers in AZ and why Fast and Furious failed.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)...... regarding straw buyers. Care to cite that story?
ATF didn't arrest the straw buyers in AZ because they were doing what they (ATF) wanted. Do try to keep up.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)You obviously have been reading the Forbes and Esquire articles, and believe all the screaming from the repukes. The accusations don't seem to make sense. Why would the ATF let guns 'walk' across the border when their job is to stop it from happening? They already knew hundreds of thousands of guns had been smuggled into Mexico. They knew who was doing it. Why not just make the arrests? Give me a motivation. Oh, I know, cuz they're evil bastards. Now prove it. You have a couple of shop owners who can't talk because of an investigation, and a couple of shop owners who don't want bad publicity so they blame the big, bad ATF. Really? The ATF came in and forced the poor gun shop owners to break the law and sell 100 guns to a guy who shouldn't have them and then let them walk across the border?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40539_Must_Read-_Fortune_Magazine_Totally_Destroys_the_Fast_and_Furious_Fake_Outrage
Sorry, this link is all I could find. It has a link to the Fortune story.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... but I am in a position to understand Federal Firearms Law. Everyone has their spin to put on F&F. I really have no interest in it at this time.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)"The reasons guns went walking from straw buyers may be a reluctance by prosecutors to arrest straw buyers in a pro gun state."
"I had the impression that Federal law forbids straw purchases strongly. Apparently that law is weak. If the following breakthrough article is correct anyway."
"Prosecutors: Transferring guns is legal in Arizona
This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurleys judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorneys Office in Arizona. Purchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful, Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorneys then-criminal chief in Arizona would later write. Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime.
And, all the while, repugs keep complaining that the government doesn't "enforce the laws already on the books."
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)This continues to show you don't know what you are talking about. Whatever AZ laws allows or says about transfers is irrelevant to Federal charges.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it looks to me like the Ass't US attorney was trying to stop the enforcement, maybe by direction from the DOJ. I don't know, but it certainly wasn't because of anything in AZ law.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)It says federal prosecutors 'may have been reluctant to' charge anyone in a pro-gun state. It says the feds were saying it was legal to transfer weapons in AZ. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS AGAINST THE FEDERAL LAWS. What I don't agree with is the DOJ or the evil Obama purposely 'killed a bunch of people so'z he could come and take yer gunss away'. I would tend to side with the guys on the ground doing the grunt work rather than Darrell Issa, who never makes a statement or charge that isn't politically motivated, or any other right-wing whack job. I have a hard time believing the gun store owners who charge that they were 'forced to ignore the laws' by the evil gub-mint. They DO have a dog in this fight.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... the federal prosecutor was "reluctant" to enforce federal law? Wouldn't you think that would be grounds for dismissal? Or at least investigation? Do we really want the federal prosecutors to decide what laws they enforce and which ones they don't? Maybe be "reluctant" to enforce banking fraud laws since "everybody does it?"
But, as I said, I don't really care. I don't have a dog in the fight. I respond only because it is a slow day on the internet.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Mark Kelly is not buying it for anyone who is prohibited by law from doing so. There's no way this is a straw purchase, and you should be apologizing for claiming it is
I guess this is the latest talking point from the extremist terrorists at the NRA.
(And the thing is - if he WAS making a straw purchase, the gun shop would probably be OK with it. WHICH IS THE PROBLEM.)
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)"Mark Kelly is not buying it for anyone who is prohibited by law from doing so."
Doesn't matter. The crime is making the false statement on the 4473. It doesn't matter whether the third party is prohibited or not.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)"If the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability under a straw purchase theory does not attach."
"Straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser ... uses a lawful 'straw man' purchaser ... to obtain a firearm."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022568923#post42
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)The US Code is pretty clear. Granted, the case law (one judge's opinion) will probably prevail (until the next judge decides it doesn't.)
davepc
(3,936 posts)I can't blame the gun shop for not wanting to be a part of that.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Rajesh
(9 posts)Good on you, gun shop owner!
Hopefully you'll also refrain from selling a gun to the next guy who leaves it unlocked and easily accessible to his psychopathic son, or to the robbers who will steal it and sell it on the street, or to the guy whose sole intention of purchasing the gun is to sell it on the street without any kind of background check, or to the paranoid, inexperienced wanker who will accidentally shoot his daughter when she unexpectedly comes home to visit late in the night, or to the parents of the short tempered, clingy girlfriend who shoots her lover in the head before stabbing him 27 times, or to the drunken asshole who fires into the air in celebratory gunfire only to kill an innocent a few blocks away, or to the bullied, depressed young man who has decided he isn't interested in living anymore.
This man is a hero.
Clames
(2,038 posts)It seems most here, in their fervor over the rifle, forgot that Mr. Kelly also purchased a semi-automatic handgun at the same time as the rifle.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I'd be super extra mad....Sig m400 on FB or your local trader times will net you 1500-2000 bucks.