I still think it could have been a straw purchase. It's entirely possible that the purchase is being funded by some anti-gun group, or that he his receiving money for the publicity stunt. So, that would mean he is not truly "gifting" the rifle - the money is just being paid by a different party than the one he is gifting it to.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mark Kelly denied AR-15 purchase
- Thread starter chris in va
- Start date
I still think it could have been a straw purchase. It's entirely possible that the purchase is being funded by some anti-gun group, or that he his receiving money for the publicity stunt. So, that would mean he is not truly "gifting" the rifle - the money is just being paid by a different party than the one he is gifting it to.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I still think it could have been a straw purchase. It's entirely possible that the purchase is being funded by some anti-gun group, or that he his receiving money for the publicity stunt. So, that would mean he is not truly "gifting" the rifle - the money is just being paid by a different party than the one he is gifting it to."
No.
The definition of a straw purchase is legally valid individual A purchasing and taking delivery of a gun that has in reality been paid for and which will be given to legally denied individual B.
It's not a straw purchase if anti-gun group A provides the money to legally valid person B to purchase and take possession of the gun and then give it to governmental entity C.
The entire premise of a straw purchase is that someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm provides cash for and then receives, the gun.
No.
The definition of a straw purchase is legally valid individual A purchasing and taking delivery of a gun that has in reality been paid for and which will be given to legally denied individual B.
It's not a straw purchase if anti-gun group A provides the money to legally valid person B to purchase and take possession of the gun and then give it to governmental entity C.
The entire premise of a straw purchase is that someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm provides cash for and then receives, the gun.
ScottRiqui
New member
I still think it could have been a straw purchase. It's entirely possible that the purchase is being funded by some anti-gun group, or that he his receiving money for the publicity stunt. So, that would mean he is not truly "gifting" the rifle - the money is just being paid by a different party than the one he is gifting it to.
I agree that it's possible, but without evidence that he bought the gun using someone else's money, there's not much further you can go with that.
Even if some anti-gun group told him "Buy a gun and gift it to the local police department, and we'll give you $X afterward for a publicity fee", I don't think that would be an illegal sale.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Even if the anti-gun group provided the money up front, it still wouldn't be a straw purchase if they never received the rifle (i.e., Kelly buys it, maintains control of it, and then turns it over to police).
Even if some anti-gun group told him "Buy a gun and gift it to the local police department, and we'll give you $X afterward for a publicity fee", I don't think that would be an illegal sale.
It does make you wonder tho, what would the Local PD do with it? If it's not the same model as their service patrol rifles, no standard parts, etc, what do you actually use it for?
They can't destroy it, the new State law prevents that. I think they would have to resell it.
ScottRiqui
New member
They can't destroy it, the new State law prevents that. I think they would have to resell it.
I'm not familiar with the state law you're talking about, but I'm assuming they could dispose of it the same way they'd dispose of a seized weapon, or one that was turned into them because the owner thought it was in unsafe shape and didn't want to sell it.
buck460XVR
New member
If you "knew it" then why did you bother asking the question as to whether it was a violation of Mr. Kelly's rights?
Actually, if you read my post, I asked if it was a "infringement" as defined by many here on this and other gun forums.
isn't this by the definition given by many on this forum here daily, an infringement of Mr. Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights?
Again, I have no problem with the shopkeeper and his decision to not sell Mark Kelly the gun. I know that is his right and I fully agree with it whether or not I agree with his reasons. My question was why folks that in one breath rant about any one ever being denied a firearm, and then with the next say "yep, ain't it great he was denied". That's all. No need to put words in my mouth or read something more into my response than there was.
Buck you are a little confused about rights.
A right does not mean that private parties have to cater to you or anyone else. It means you are protected from the government infringing upon your rights.
Seems I'm not the only one confused......I believe your rights are also protected from being infringed upon by private parties and individuals also....not just the government. While a gun shop can refuse to sell you a firearm for certain concerns, can they deny you enter the store because of race, ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual preference? Can the gas company deny to sell you fuel for your furnace because of the color of your skin? Is this not a case of a private party catering to you or any one else?
Again.....you guys need to chill. I never said I disagreed with the shop owners decision, in fact I said I tended to agree and understand why he did it.....if that is indeed why the sale was not made. I also understood this....
Oh, and some of the guys who are happy he was refused the purchase just see it as a case of someone they don't like getting a little of what they deserve.
.....just human nature.
ScottRiqui
New member
Actually, if you read my post, I asked if it was a "infringement" as defined by many here on this and other gun forums.
Well then, the answer to that question would obviously be 'yes', simply because there are a lot of people here and on other gun forums who don't know what "infringement" means.
And if frogs had machine guns, snakes wouldn't mess with them - what's your point?
buck460XVR
New member
what's your point?
You hit it on the head exactly.......
Well then, the answer to that question would obviously be 'yes', simply because there are a lot of people here and on other gun forums who don't know what "infringement" means.
I rest my case.
Rifleman1952
New member
I recently lost respect for Mr Kelly after seeing him, along with several other anti-gun folks, on an episode of MSNBC's "Morning Joe". Mr Kelly agreed with very ardent gun control activists, that there is no difference between the military weapons used by our troops and the civilian AR-15 variants. As a former military officer, he knows better, yet he went along with the disinformation. It is one thing for him to call for strictor gun control in an honest manner. We can agree to disagree in such a case. But by supporting the big lie, Mr Kelly crosses the line in such a way that his integrity and character are legitimately in question.
Again, I know the shop owner was only making a political statement and not wanting to be in the middle of a media storm,
Actually, it was Kelly who was trying to make a political statement here. The store owner was simply refusing to be the proverbial paper on which the statement was printed.
Even if you put that point aside, the private store owner can refuse to do business with ANYONE as long as his reason is not prohibited by law.
Mike Irwin said:The entire premise of a straw purchase is that someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm provides cash for and then receives, the gun.
While I understand what you are saying, you are technically incorrect...
The person that the 'straw purchase' is being made for need not be (but more often than not is) "someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm"...
Many 'straw purchases' have been done for non prohibited persons for various reasons (such as not wanting your 'name associated' with a sale/purchase), and these are just as illegal in the eyes of BATF as if the person were 'prohibited'...
Form 4473 says nothing about buying for a prohibited person...It asks if you are buying for yourself...
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
But, if mr kelly was funded by someone else, even a legal individual, but there was no intent to transfer the gun to the fund provider, again no straw purchase has taken place. The intent has to be to effect the transfer.
But, if mr kelly was funded by someone else, even a legal individual, but there was no intent to transfer the gun to the fund provider, again no straw purchase has taken place. The intent has to be to effect the transfer.
Seems I'm not the only one confused......I believe your rights are also protected from being infringed upon by private parties and individuals also....not just the government. While a gun shop can refuse to sell you a firearm for certain concerns, can they deny you enter the store because of race, ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual preference? Can the gas company deny to sell you fuel for your furnace because of the color of your skin? Is this not a case of a private party catering to you or any one else?
You are confusing yourself Buck. How did race get into this? Kelley is a white male, not a protected class. He was not denied the purchase based on his race, color, or creed. The shop owner denied the purchase because he did not want to give Kelly a political prop. The shop owner exercised HIS rights, and none of Mr. Kelly's rights were violated.
I applaud the exercise of individual rights all around. Mr Kelly can go somewhere else to make his purchase or get his own FFL if he wants. You can keep trying to criticize us gun owners for supporting the gun shop rights but you will be standing in lonely territory. Perhaps you should find an example of real rights violation to harp on instead.
Mike Irwin said:But, if mr kelly was funded by someone else, even a legal individual, but there was no intent to transfer the gun to the fund provider, again no straw purchase has taken place. The intent has to be to effect the transfer.
I agree...
If Mr. Kelly's intent was to gift the arm to a police agency, it is my understanding that is a perfectly legal transaction no matter whose money was used...
ScottRiqui
New member
I agree...
If Mr. Kelly's intent was to gift the arm to a police agency, it is my understanding that is a perfectly legal transaction no matter whose money was used...
Reading the explanation on the back of Form 4473, I don't see how the buyer can 'gift' the purchased gun to someone else, since he didn't use his own money to make the purchase.
In other words, I don't think that "A" can give money to "B" to buy a gun for the purposes of transferring it to "C", whether or not "A" and/or "C" are prohibited persons. In this case, I don't think that "B" is 'legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party' (ATF's terminology), so he would have to answer 'no' to Question 11.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I haven't seen any firm information as to where the funds came from. Do you have some good info on that?ScottRiqui said:. . . . since he didn't use his own money to make the purchase.
Evan Thomas
New member
I haven't seen any news stories indicating that Mr. Kelly used someone else's money to buy the AR15. Unless someone has evidence that the money did come from another source, speculation about the legalities of A-to-B-to-C transactions is just that -- speculation -- and off-topic for this thread.
(Edit: cross-posting with Spats...)
(Edit: cross-posting with Spats...)
ScottRiqui
New member
I haven't seen any firm information as to where the funds came from. Do you have some good info on that?
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. I was just talking about Salmoneye's statement that "If Mr. Kelly's intent was to gift the arm to a police agency, it is my understanding that is a perfectly legal transaction no matter whose money was used..." (emphasis added)
I don't think that one person can give money to a second person to buy a firearm for a third person, regardless of the status of the first or third persons, because at that point, it's not legitimately a 'gift' from the buyer to the third person.
buck460XVR
New member
Even if you put that point aside, the private store owner can refuse to do business with ANYONE as long as his reason is not prohibited by law.
...and if read any or all of my posts you'll see I acknowledge this and agree with it. If you are tryin' to educate or convince me of something I already know and agree with you're wasting your breath.
You are confusing yourself Buck. How did race get into this? Kelley is a white male, not a protected class. He was not denied the purchase based on his race, color, or creed. The shop owner denied the purchase because he did not want to give Kelly a political prop. The shop owner exercised HIS rights, and none of Mr. Kelly's rights were violated.
No, I not confusing myself, but maybe we're confusing each other thanks to the power of the internet. Again.....and I'll type this slowly, I did not say Mr. Kelly's rights were violated anywhere or at any time. I simply made a comment about the observation of some folk's ironic and hypocritical reactions to the event. Not anybody in particular but about some chest pounders in general. It was not a slam on all gun owners, nor was it a objection to what happened, again just an observation. You were the one that stated that our rights are only protected from infringement from the government. I only argued that private groups and individuals could also infringe upon our rights and we as a whole are protected from that also.
The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have the right to deny a firearms sale to a loudmouth, bigoted racist who publicly espouses hatred and is secretly hoping for a race war. Further, I would fight any legislation that attempted to deny him that sale, because such legislation would certainly run afoul of the First Amendment, and venture into "thought crime" territory.
But, if a private citizen refuses to sell that same man a gun, then I'll buy that citizen's lunch.
I totally agree...always have and always will. Again, what I thought was ironic was folks that in one breath scream there should be NO restrictions at anytime, on anyone owning/purchasing firearms, but then in the next breath heave a sigh of relief and celebrate when someone else is denied, that was all. Whether it came out wrong or because of the tension due to the political climate surrounding guns has others jumping on any one who doesn't agree with 100% of everything they say concerning guns, I don't know. Certainly wasn't meant to be the big deal some folks made it out to be.