Mark Kelly denied AR-15 purchase

Crossed my mind that maybe Kelly made arrangements with the gun shop owner to deny the AR after he(Kelly) found out the publicity it caused him was not to his liking. Just a thought.

Kelly surely didn't prove the point that he could walk into an LGS and walk out with an AR. It's obvious he knew about the 20 day wait on getting the used AR before he left the gun store. He still went through with the purchase.

Apparently that was not the point he was trying to make.

Maybe Kelly is a 'closet' pro-gunner. :D

After all, I believe he has always maintained he was going to keep the 1911. Or at least has never made mention of getting rid of it.

If he bought the 1911 for the protection of his family and self, he has the right to do so. Kudo's to him for finally having the common sense to realize the necessity.

As stated earlier, I just hope he is a responsible gun owner and enlists in a gun safety course and if he got it for protection, he takes a gun related SD/HD course as well.
 
Last edited:
Crossed my mind that maybe Kelly made arrangements with the gun shop owner to deny the AR after he(Kelly) found out the publicity it caused him was not to his liking.

Kelly surely didn't prove the point that he could walk into an LGS and walk out with an AR and you can be sure he knew about the 20 day wait on the used AR before he left the gun store. He still went through with the purchase.

Apparently that was not the point he was trying to make.
Click to expand...

Well, it is odd in a way. Tucson is rare with the Ordinance on the 20 day waiting period, and by the way, let's be clear. This is a 20 day wait imposed on the store owner(FFL), before he can sell the gun to a new owner. It doesn't mean you must wait 20 days on any used gun you want to buy in Tucson. As soon as the store has waited the 20 days the gun can be sold and the new owner can walk out with it on that very day. I think what this does is impose a delay that allows stolen guns and guns used in crimes to be identified by LE before they are resold to new owners.

Someone sells a gun to a Store, the store must sit on the gun for 20 days, then they can resell it.

Almost any other city in AZ and this wouldn't have happened this way.

But Shortwave has a point.

Kelly goes in, buys a pistol, then decides to buy this used AR-15(type?) rifle. The LGS owner says "it's used, city says I can't sell it to you for a few more days. He pays his money, completes his Background Check, goes home and tweets it up. And things get goofy from there.

Now why did he complete that purchase? He did tweet how easy it all was to buy it. Ignoring the waiting period is in some ways not a big deal, almost anywhere else in AZ he wouldn't have had to wait.

I think he had enough of what he wanted in order to start his little ball rolling, he could wait a few more days for the actual gun and the pics. He just didn't expect the LGS to spoil his fun.
 
Personally -- and I stress that this is just my personal opinion -- I don't think he had any intention of proving a point, OR of donating the rifle to the police department. I think he wanted an AR-15 for home defense, which is an extremely hypocritical action on his part ("One for me, but none for thee"), and then word leaked out and he was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar. The "I was just proving a point" story IMHO is nothing other than a lame cover story.
 
buck460XVR, check out ScottRiqui's post on page 2, where he would not want the government to be able to deny a firearm sale to a loudmouthed bigot race-baiter, but would buy the store owner lunch if he refused to sell to the same guy.

I agree entirely with ScottRiqui on that one, and don't find it the least bit hypocritical.

I don't want the government to stop Mark Kelly from buying a gun, but I would love to buy that store owner lunch.
 
Kelley is a white male, not a protected class.
Click to expand...
it wouldn't matter if he was a member of a protected class. The sale was denied on the manner of the purchase, not the status of the buyer. Had service been denied to Kelly because of race, creed, or other factor, that might be an issue. Service was denied due to his actions.

A member of a protected class can get thrown out of a bar for being a punchy drunk. He can also be denied a gun sale based on weird statements or actions.
 
NWPilgrim said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tom this is exactly what I said, we agree.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to open a can of worms or drift the thread...

I have no idea what funds Mr. Kelly was using for this purchase...I was speaking to the legality of the transaction IF the funds were other than his...

While I have no corroborating evidence, I have indeed 'heard' of citizens and groups taking collections and purchasing weapons and gear for local PD's in the past...I may very well be incorrect about the legality of such a transaction, but it is my understanding that no laws are broken in this scenario...

I apologize if I made it sound as if this is the case with this incident...
 
Rifleman1952 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like Charlton Heston said on TV to Clinton "if you say it & it's wrong, that's a mistake. If you say it & KNOW it's wrong, that's a LIE."
 
I'm sure that the privileged few, like Mr. Kelly, will be exempted from whatever gun laws they're trying to enforce upon the rest of us.

Buying a gun to aid in banning of our Constitutional right isn't something that should be protected or championed. And just like gun manufacturers refuse to sell to anti 2A state agencies, anti 2A "celebrities" and figures should also be denied business.

No one really knows what the truth is behind his purchase. If he was planning to buy the Sig rifle to show how easy it is to get one, why also get a 1911 for personal use? Or was he also planning on handing the 1911 over as well? Maybe he was just caught being a hypocrite and was quickly whipped into shape by his media handlers... but was told keep the 1911, because it's proof that they're not trying to take ALL the guns.

They're just after those semi assault automatic AR style military rifles with large clips that the soldiers have...
 
It seems like there needs to be another "Private Database" maintained by the shooting sports that would alerts gun sellers of people like Mr. Kelly.

Now wouldn't that be interesting...
 
Just saying, you will find anti-gunners don't want YOU to have a gun. They generally have no trouble having guns for themselves, their security and their private armies. This is really a control issue.

Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelley, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, mayor Bloomberg....THEY ALL LOVE ASSAULT WEAPONS, MACHINE GUNS, AND HANDGUNS. They show this by buying guns, having CCW's, buying armed security and buying private armies to use guns against people at home and all over the world.

They don't love people being free to own guns, organize freely and being free to consider revolution over lack of representation. This is what the bill of rights is all about. . . It provides for an often silent anchor to keep our government from drifting too far from directly representing the people. Our forefathers thought this revolt would happen fairly regularly.
 
I'm sure that the privileged few, like Mr. Kelly, will be exempted from whatever gun laws they're trying to enforce upon the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is usually written in that LEO and hired security are exempt. There is more detail, but basically with money, you can probably buy any right you want.
 
Example: Allegedly, Bill Gates' security team is composed of former Blackwater operators, to include snipers.

I don't know whether Bill Gates favors gun control, but he has seriously armed security.
 
The ordinance used to be ten days wait on the GUN, when I sold guns in Tucson for a living. What I CAN tell you, and have been yelling this over and over, (apparently into a vacuum), that the InstaCheck is done at the time of sale...and if the gun is being held for TPD, (they aren't checking guns to see if they were used in a crime, the ordinance is on any serial numbered item to see if it has been reported stolen), then THE GUN CANNOT BE LEGALLY SOLD. Think about this, even if the rifle was sold legally to Kelly, and he decided to add some extras while it was in the store, as has been surmised...what happen if the serial number comes back that it was stolen in Oregon three years earlier? Don't think this happens? I had TPD come in and pick up a stolen Ruger Mark II when I worked at Firearm Catalog Showroom. I saw a couple of stolen guns go off with TPD when I worked at Jensen's West indoor range/gunshop. It happens.
So, the point of this rant? The GUNSHOP owner was screwed up - he should NOT have sold the rifle, he should NOT have done the InstaCheck. What they COULD have been doing was LAYAWAY, which can be refunded, pending clearance of the stolen check, then they would have done the InstaCheck at the actual time of transfer.
Sidebar - what the heck was the gun doing on the shelf if it was on 20 day hold? It should have been in the backroom. I haven't been in Diamondback in many years, but the shops I worked at always made it a point to keep "hold" guns out of sight until the clock ran out.
Thing is, there is too much that doesn't pass the smell test to a former actual Tucson gunshop employee.
 
Too much chance for misinformation to be injected into it from the reporters too. They don't always use the correct terminology or depict events accurately.
 
+1 armoredman ,

Feel the same way. Something just doesn't pass the smell test.
Course I don't know how they do business at Diamondback or the laws in Arizona.

The LGS's I've dealt with around these parts would not have had the rifle out on display at all till it was cleared to do so.

Even if I took a gun into one of the shops to sell on consignment it would remain in the back room till the numbers were run. And I know the owners of the three shops I speak of very well. Have shot/hunted with two of them.
Don't know how the actual law is here in Ohio relating to this but I can assure you that their(the above three mentioned shops) normal mode of practice is to not set a gun out on display until it's ready to be sold.
 
Whatever the case may be for Kelly, his plan to buy the AR15 seems to have backfired on him.

If he was smart, he could've just bought a new rifle instead or buy one from a private individual.
 
Is the LGS within their rights to refuse the sale? Yes. If I was the owner, would I have sold Mr. Kelly the rifle? Yes.

Alcohol and cigarettes kill more people than guns. But that doesn't stop convenience stores from selling to adults. Political tool? That is a ridiculous argument.
 
Kelly's intent for purchasing the rifle was to "show how easy it is to get" one of these rifles.
Click to expand...

That certainly blew up in his face...
He was unable to just walk right out the door with it the same day as he had hoped due to an effective existing law.

The icing on the cake is the shop owner completely turning the political table on him by cancelling the sale and exposing his buffoonery.

Excellent results from every angle as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top