So did the gun store do what is right or wrong? Read and the links and comment! http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/0...ase-canceled-by-arizona-gun-dealer-86711.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/politics/mark-kelly-ar-15/index.html?hpt=po_c2 Personally I think this was a bad move by the gun store and I would love to hear how the NRA and the activists are going to spin this. I love how CNN added the blurb about the store saying that it was because of Kelly's comments in the media.
I can see this two ways: first, it could be considered a straw purchase since he is going to buy the gun and then give itt o someone else since he is not buying the gun for himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase Second, it could be a right of the private business to do what it pleases. They can choose to refund, sell, or not sell, to anyone they want to. How do you see this?
I had not thought of straw purchase angle, if the gun store owner had said that, I might reconsider. However CNN is quoting the cancelation of the sale because of the political comments that Mark made.
Good point. There was a thread floating around here on this site talking about how the picture of Gabby holding an AR15 at a range made them look like hypocrits. However anyone who actually followed the political career of Gabby Giffords new she was a politically friendly to the 2nd amendment . When I lived in Arizona I voted for and was glad she represented me.
Well the great thing about this country is taht a private business can do or not do anything it wants to as long as it doesn't steal, lie, cheat, or otherwise harm another person or entity. They could say that they didn't want to sell a gun to him because he had bad breath. Does that make sense? Absolutely not, but the gun store can do it if they want to. No one forces people to buy guns; it is entirely by choice.
Kelley and Giffords were always gun owners, they just want more regulation on who can get access. The irony is that this gun shop owner denies the sale because he doesn't like the politics of the buyer. If only that were true of gun dealers when the politics is about anti-government violence.
Gun Store retailers have the right to refuse to sell to anyone they are suspicious of. Just like those with a liquor license can refuse service as they see fit. If Kelly really wanted to "take a bite out of crime" he should show the world how easy it is to smuggle weapons, narcotic, money and illegal aliens across the border in Mexico. According to WND researchers, about 2,100 people are year are murdered by illegal aliens in the US each year, or about 12 a day. So that's like one good sized mass shooting every day. It would be nice if the Justice Dept. would be good enough to release their statistics---but they are forbidden to do so.
Kelly wanted to prove how easy it was for a law abiding citizen to buy a weapon after a legitimate background check....DUH Did that prove that a criminal could get a weapon the same way he did, or prove how easy a criminal could get a weapon illegally err NOPE. Did it show how new background checks would be useless err NOPE! Does a citizen have a right to oppose another citizens view point by refusing to play their political games....DUH! Guess I miss the OPs point, looks to me like it's an antigun thing and it got stuffed. POINT SET and MATCH goes to store owner eh?
If you are not up on the laws, It would look like political bashing by the gun store because they do not like his politics. But I would have to agree on the "Straw Purchase" When I purchased mine it states, this gun is for my personal use and you check the "Yes" Box. Now otherwise would be an offense. So since he stated he was going to be purchasing this firearm and giving it to the police my question would be is anyone going to charge him for?
A business has a right to refuse sales or services to anyone for any reason, Period. I would not have sold him the weapon either.
Technically the gun store did the right thing. Once they found out that he lied on the form, they had to deny his purchase.
Denying a straw purchase. By not allowing someone to straw purchase, you stop a crime. He could be charged for lying on the form, a felony, if he went through with the purchase.
so I am looking at the form and I see this part on top of the secound page, 3rd line http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf Question 11A is Didnt want anyone to say I left anything out. so in him putting "Yes" on 11A even though he was going to give the gun away did he not break Federal law?
Look at the warning at the top of the 4473 (the actual form for the background check if you have never seen one before), and then read 11.a and then ask yourself "was he purchasing the gun for himself, or was he purchasing it to give to some other entity?". http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1bg.gif
Actually you are correct. He didn't lie on the form until such a time as he purchased the weapon and transferred it to someone else (police) Seeing as there was no purchase or transfer he cannot be held liable for a crime. Of course in reality either way it might have turned out Mark Kelley is a liar and hypocrite. He either lied on the form or lied when he got caught buying a firearm for himself that he wants no one else the opportunity to buy. Glad the proven liars and hypocrites are on your side but not surprised. Once the lie was made the gunshop had no other legal alternative to cancel the sale.
Lying on the federal form is what Obama wants enforced more stringently however his justice department says they don't agree and there are more serious crimes to pursue. That's why persecutions of gun crimes is down under Obama. Funny how the anti's want even more laws....eh
I personally think this is there case. He was going to buy it hoping to slip under the radar, was caught red handed, and then fabricated a story to say he was going to give it to the police because he doesn't want to be "that guy."
