Mark Kelly denied AR-15 purchase

* My bad on the straw purchase question *
My thoughts were of the 'intent' of the purchase.


Rifleman.. I can't honest;y answer you as far as 'firearms' are concerned.

But Here in Connecticut I'm sure firearms sales laws are protected just like Liquor sales...
As a liquor salesman. I can refuse service.., and have done so to certain individuals...

Up until the 1970's
( the liberal courts and aclu overturned 'Shut off Notices')
where a family or court could make a request to the town government
to have all liquor sales outlets refuse service to 'said' individuals.
These notices were received daily in the mail, and had to be posted ' on premise'
but not in public view. these were determined to infringe on civil rights
 
Lot of issues here. Does the owner of a private business have the right to choose who he wishes to do business with?



ABSOLUTELY


Business is transacted between people who mutually wish to carry out a transaction. If a shopkeeper says "sorry, I don't like you, get outta my store" you best be going. You have no "rights", other than the right not to be discriminated against for reasons of race, sex, etc. You can toss a minority out of your store for being a jerk. You cannot toss him out for being green. But you CAN toss him out.


Willie

.
 
It's well within the gunstore owner's rights to decline the sale, especially after he found out that he was being used in a publicity exercise.

Kelly's intent for purchasing the rifle was to "show how easy it is to get" one of these rifles.

By extension that is going to make the gunshop owner look bad, and he has the right to determine if someone wlse is going to make him look bad or not.
 
It's well within the gunstore owner's rights to decline the sale, especially after he found out that he was being used in a publicity exercise.
Click to expand...

While I too am not a fan of Mark Kelly and the reasons he was trying to do this, and agree the shop owner was well within his rights.....isn't this by the definition given by many on this forum here daily, an infringement of Mr. Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights? Why is it we cry when one of us has go thru a background check and then wait 48 hours to pick-up a handgun after the initial purchase, but then clap our hands in applause when someone else gets denied a legal purchase for no other reason than who he is? Isn't that kinda ironic and a bit of hypocrisy? Again, I know the shop owner was only making a political statement and not wanting to be in the middle of a media storm, but it seems that since the purchase was denied on personal reasons and not any thing legal or restrictive, it almost still proves a point to the antis.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
Lot of issues here. Does the owner of a private business have the right to choose who he wishes to do business with? Answer: No. If he had refused to sell the gun to a man who is a minority that would be a law violation under the civil rights act. It is an interesting conundrum.
Click to expand...

No conundrum whatsoever. Businesses all over America have signs reading "We reserve the right to refuse sales to anyone for any reason." The only reasons that are not valid are Protected Classes.

I can deny sales to people in white shirts, or with earrings, or anyone over 5ft 3inches... or because I recognize them and don't like them. None of those are protected.
 
.isn't this by the definition given by many on this forum here daily, an infringement of Mr. Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...

Much like "censorship", it's not "infringement" if it's being done by a private individual.

If you want to buy one of my personal guns, and I don't want to sell it to you - for whatever reason, or for no reason at all - am I "infringing" on your Second Amendment rights? Of course not.

The shop owner isn't "the gubmint" - he's a private individual who happens to own and sell guns.
 
"an infringement of Mr. Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights?"

Absolutely not.

The owner of the gunshop is not an arm of the Federal Government. It has not attempted to deny him the right to purchase all firearms, it is simply refusing to provide him service in that store at that time.

Courts in a number of states have ruled that it is within a store's rights to refuse service to a customer as a means of protecting the business.

In this case, the owner of the store is protecting his store against adverse publicity that would be generated by Mr. Kelly's attempts to "show how easy it is to get one of these guns."


A number of years ago I was working in a gun shop in Virginia. An individual came in wearing a black T-shirt with:

"Feeling suicidal?" (picture of hangman's noose)

"Take some people with you!" (picture of a handgun)

I immediately kicked him out of the store, and threatened to call the police if he didn't get off the property.

The fact that I was also wearing a .357 in a shoulder holster probably helped emphasize my point.

Was I within my rights to kick him out of the store, even thought it wasn't MY store?

Hell yes.

I was protecting the owner's business and reputation. There was no way in hell that I would ever sell a firearm to someone wearing a shirt like that, and I didn't even want him on the property for its disruptive value.

He complained, but he left.
 
Last edited:
By Cheezhed;
.... It seems he wanted a used Sig and I believe there is a twenty day waiting period for a used gun In Arizona so why pick a gun that you have a long waiting period if you want to illustrate the ease of purchase?
Click to expand...

A waiting period in AZ, not even close. You can walk in, buy anything you are legally allowed to own right there on the spot, as long as you get passed the Background Check and your money is good.

You guys caught most of the rest.
 
Apparently in Arizona a gunshop has to keep a used firearm turned in/traded/sold by a private individual for a minimum of 20 days, and that's why Mr. Kelly didn't get the rifle outright.
 
Actually, according to the reporter in the article it's a city ordinance(Tucson).

But Kelly couldn't immediately take possession of the rifle because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, city ordinance. OK.

I heard it on the news this morning and they didn't say that it was a city ordinance, just an ordinance, and I interpreted that to mean it was an Arizona thing.
 
The owner of the gunshop is not an arm of the Federal Government. It has not attempted to deny him the right to purchase all firearms, it is simply refusing to provide him service in that store at that time.

Courts in a number of states have ruled that it is within a store's rights to refuse service to a customer as a means of protecting the business.

In this case, the owner of the store is protecting his store against adverse publicity that would be generated by Mr. Kelly's attempts to "show how easy it is to get one of these guns."
Click to expand...


I know all of this, and stated as much in my post in the first line......:rolleyes:

I too am not a fan of Mark Kelly and the reasons he was trying to do this, and agree the shop owner was well within his rights
Click to expand...

My observation was that the same folks that pound their chest and insist that anyone should have the right to own any firearm, regardless of need or application, are the same ones that are now relishing the fact that Mr. Kelly was denied a purchase. That was the irony and hypocrisy I was referring too. Same old what's right for me is not right for you.


......and if lcpiper is correct, it WAS the "the gubmint" that stopped the sale.

But Kelly couldn't immediately take possession of the rifle because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime.
Click to expand...
 
buck460XVR said:
My observation was that the same folks that pound their chest and insist that anyone should have the right to own any firearm, regardless of need or application, are the same ones that are now relishing the fact that Mr. Kelly was denied a purchase. That was the irony and hypocrisy I was referring too. Same old what's right for me is not right for you.
Click to expand...

You are confusing two entirely different concepts. Mr Kelly has every right to own firearms. He doesn't have ANY right to own THAT firearm.

He doesn't have the right to own any of mine, either, even if they're for sale. Neither do you. I have the right to sell them, or not sell them, to any person for any reason.

I, in fact, as an individual, even have the right to refuse to sell to a "Protected Class".

The store can't refuse on Protected Class grounds, but they can refuse on any number of other grounds, including "I don't like you."

Those who support both sides of that argument aren't hypocrites and there's no irony. There are no rights violations and, in fact, forcing one side or the other WOULD be a rights violation.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
Lot of issues here. Does the owner of a private business have the right to choose who he wishes to do business with? Answer: No. If he had refused to sell the gun to a man who is a minority that would be a law violation under the civil rights act. It is an interesting conundrum.
Click to expand...
Answer: Yes.

Any business owner may decline to sell to anyone as long as he doesn't discriminate against a customer on the basis of the legally protected criteria: race, gender, color, religion. He would not be allowed to refuse a sale to a black man because he's black, or to a Hebrew because he's Jewish, but he could decline to sell to either of the above on the same basis he declined to sell to Kelly: that he didn't like being used as a political pawn. He could, in fact, have refused to sell to Kelly because he's bald. Lack of head hair is not a legally protected class.

Restaurants (and many stores) do this all the time. They have signs on the doors saying, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Is that not a refusal to sell to certain patrons?
 
......and if lcpiper is correct, it WAS the "the gubmint" that stopped the sale.

Quote:
But Kelly couldn't immediately take possession of the rifle because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime.
Click to expand...


No Buck460XVR, I can't take credit for the quote, I quoted the reporter who wrote the article. So it's if the reporter is correct. I just read the article is all.


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.

Mark Kelly may not actually be that bad a guy and I was certainly sorry for Gabby Giffords being shot as that was a terrible thing that happened that day. And it was even worse for those who were killed that day as well. But I do have a problem with Mark Kelly now and what he has allowed to happen. He has allowed his wife and himself to become tools for the Antis and if he want's to do this, ok, his choice. But the bad part is letting his hurt wife be used like a prop, a walking poster child for the Antis. They make it sound like she made a real recovery but that woman isn't a 100% by a long shot and they are using her and the tragedy of that day to push their agenda. He is allowing it and that is what makes him despicable, but not more so then the people who are using him as well.
 
Last edited:
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.

It is perfectly consistent to champion less govt restrictions on individual right to gun purchases and ownership, and also applaud a PRIVATE PARTY for exercising their RIGHT to conduct business with whom they chose.
 
That was the irony and hypocrisy I was referring too. Same old what's right for me is not right for you.
Click to expand...

It's not ironic, contradictory, inconsistent or hypocritical, because we're talking about two completely different things - the rights, duties and responsibilities of the government and the rights, duties and responsibilities of a private individual.

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.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
I, in fact, as an individual, even have the right to refuse to sell to a "Protected Class".
Click to expand...
Not once it has been placed on consignment in a gun shop, or advertised for sale in any public medium. This is why most people who have "mother-in-law" apartments in their house never advertise when the apartment is up for rent.
 
If you "knew it" then why did you bother asking the question as to whether it was a violation of Mr. Kelly's rights?

Obviously the answer is no. :rolleyes: yourself.


"it WAS the "the gubmint" that stopped the sale."

No, it wasn't. I'm not sure how you got that. The local government has a mandated hold period for used firearms.

After that hold period, if nothing is wrong, the gunshop can sell the gun.

The hold period had not yet expired when the owner of the gun shop, the PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, made the decision to void the sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top