Gun shop blocks Mark Kelly’s right to buy AR-15, citing political ‘intent’

[Kimberly]

NOW they're pro 2nd amendment

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:04 PM

Star Member kpete (38,416 posts)

Gun 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 astronaut’s Second Amendment right because he questioned the political “intent” behind the purchase.


Diamondback Police Supply
22 hours ago
Statement of Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply Co., Inc.

“While I support and respect Mark Kelly’s 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 company’s 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 organization’s members. The A.T.O. A. represents the SWAT and Special Response officers of the state’s 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 wife’s 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/

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:09 PM

Star Member joeybee12 (41,052 posts)

2. I guess the government can't regulate guns, but some POS store owner in Tuscon can...
 
Yeah, that was the founders intent.

Response to joeybee12 (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:21 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (2,605 posts)

6. Look at it this way. The USA has pharmacists that won't
 
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.

 

So what's the big deal? DU tells me that's who owns guns anyway.
 

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:10 PM

Star Member Rex (33,246 posts)

3. You cannot deny someone their 2nd amendment rights based on political intent.
 
The gun shop owner screwed up

.

Tell Obama that. Please.

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:37 PM

Star Member cynatnite (26,949 posts)

16. Seems like the ones who scream the loudest about gun rights...
 
are also the ones who have no problem denying law-abiding Americans a gun.

At least one DUer understands it. Must be one of those gungeon freeper trolls. 

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:37 PM

Star Member former9thward (6,005 posts)

15. After it became known that Kelly purchased this weapon ...

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.

 

[Chris_]

emergency birth control

Good God.

[Carl]

Do they not understand that the Bill of Rights is addressing what the government can not do to a private citizen?

[DLR Pyro]

Star Member joeybee12 (41,052 posts)

2. I guess the government can't regulate guns, but some POS store owner in Tuscon can...

what are you so upset about jujubee?  That is one less "scared white man" to possess an evil gun. 

[FiddyBeowulf]

The FFL had a reasonable idea that the buyer of the firearm was not going to be the one possessing it after the transfer based on the buyer's public statements on the subject. The FFL decided not to complete what he felt could be a straw man purchase in the what is/is not legal now eyes of the BATFE.

In a statement posted to Facebook, Diamondback Police Supply owner Doug MacKinlay said that he was blocking the former astronaut’s Second Amendment right because he questioned the political “intent” behind the purchase.

“While I support and respect Mark Kelly’s 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,” MacKinlay wrote.

[Wineslob]

'We reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to ANYONE" ring a bell?


Stupid DUmmies.

[Kimberly]

Another one

Response to phantom power (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:56 AM

Fawke Em (2,355 posts)

1. Um... his purchasing the gun to show how easy it is to
 
get IS his personal use of the weapon.

I'd rather he use it as a learning tool about the lack of regulations on these types of firearms than for him to shoot up a school or a theater.

Umm... the gun was on a 20 day waiting period b/c it was owned privately, not by the gun shop. Sounds regulated to me.

Response to Fawke Em (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:05 AM

phantom power (22,301 posts)

4. it's important to understand how conservative wingnuts think...

the word salad that comes out of their mouths only makes sense when you understand the unspoken subtext, which is: they don't believe rights, or entitlements, are for anybody except other white conservative wingnuts.

These guys are upset because Kelly isn't in their conservative wingnut club, and we can't have guns in the hands of people who aren't in the club, you know.

It's kind of like how this protester isn't actually upset about government "in" medicaid, he is upset about the idea of medicaid being used by poor brown people, who certainly aren't in the white conservative wingnut club:

Response to Fawke Em (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:22 AM

Junkdrawer (25,472 posts)

10. The only legitimate use for firearms is to ameliorate paranoia....
 
Oh..and you can also shoot animals if you're old fashioned.

Response to phantom power (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:00 AM

Star Member atreides1 (10,092 posts)

3. Who gets to define "personal use"?

If I purchase a weapon and put over my mantle, it's personal use...if I use it for target shooting or hunting, that's also personal.

So, Captain Kelly wanting to use a weapon that he legally purchased under Arizona law to prove a point is also personal use.

But the seller has arbitrarily decided something that gun rights advocates have accused the government of attempting...hypocrite much Mr. MacKinlay.

Who gets to define "personal use"?  Tell that to Mayor Bloomberg. Or Diane Feinstien. Or Cuomo. Or the entire democrap party.

Response to phantom power (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:08 AM

Star Member alcibiades_mystery (27,652 posts)

5. So much for an absolute right
 
"We reserve the right to refuse service..."

"No shirt, no shoes, no political agreement, no service."

Once again, the gunners show us exactly what kinds of assholes they are. They can't help themselves

.

Aren't you the ones arguing it's not an absolute right? So now it is? Good Lord, being a lib is so confusing.

Response to phantom power (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:23 AM

Blue_Tires (30,812 posts)

11. Just when I thought I'd seen the most surreal of RW hypocrisy...
 
Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:23 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I'm tempted to open up my own gun shop just so I can NOT sell to the redneck nutbar loons, since they aren't the "right kind of people"...God, the local whining and tears would overflow the Grand Canyon...

[BlueStateSaint]

The FFL had a reasonable idea that the buyer of the firearm was not going to be the one possessing it after the transfer based on the buyer's public statements on the subject. The FFL decided not to complete what he felt could be a straw man purchase in the what is/is not legal now eyes of the BATFE.

Dead on.  I'm sure that the lawyers of the gun store were involved in this decision.

[GOBUCKS]

The FFL had a reasonable idea that the buyer of the firearm was not going to be the one possessing it after the transfer based on the buyer's public statements on the subject. The FFL decided not to complete what he felt could be a straw man purchase in the what is/is not legal now eyes of the BATFE.

Exactly. Had the purchase gone through, Kelly and the gungrabber 0bamaites could have continued to whine about how easy it is to purchase a firearm, plus claim to have demonstrated how easy it is to make a straw purchase.

Their next step would have been to go after the gunshop owner's FFL.

[DefiantSix]

Response to phantom power (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:56 AM

Fawke Em (2,355 posts)

1. Um... his purchasing the gun to show how easy it is to
 
get IS his personal use of the weapon.

I'd rather he use it as a learning tool about the lack of regulations on these types of firearms than for him to shoot up a school or a theater.

This DUmbass should be frog-marched to The Hague for the severity with which s/h/it tortured logic with that steaming pile.

[Freeper]

I love it when a moonbat's stunt backfires.

[Chris_]

Response to phantom power (Original post)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:23 AM
Blue_Tires (30,812 posts)

11. Just when I thought I'd seen the most surreal of RW hypocrisy...

I'm tempted to open up my own gun shop just so I can NOT sell to the redneck nutbar loons, since they aren't the "right kind of people"...God, the local whining and tears would overflow the Grand Canyon...

This I have to see.  This DUmmy's gun shop will be run just like Judy's pie shop... free guns for government employees, profits to fund school music programs.

Oh, and poetry night.

[DefiantSix]

I love it when a moonbat's stunt backfires.

Repeated failure to consider unintended consequences - even after being bitten on the ass by them - sure makes these idiots good for the entertainment value.

[Kimberly]

And still worried about Mark Kelly's 2nd amendment rights

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:44 AM

Star Member trumad (34,050 posts)

1. Thank you Mr. MacKinlay for keeping this in the news
 
and help making Mark Kelly's point.

Douchebag

Uhh, Kelly's supposed "point" was that it's too easy to get a gun. And then he didn't get the gun b/c he lied on his application. So he failed. Big time.

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:22 AM

Ikonoklast (21,157 posts)

6. Another dimbulb shoots himself in the foot.
 
Free publicity, all courtesy of a dumbass.

Didn't think of the consequences of his actions, quelle surpise!

Do you mean Mark Kelly. Because I agree he's quite the dimbulb.

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:01 AM

Star Member bluedigger (9,682 posts)

12. None of his business as to Gifford's intentions with the weapon.



Unless he has knowledge of criminal intent, he is interfering with Mr. Gifford's 2A Rights.

Your concern is quite touching. And as about as sincere as Obama in 2008 stating he had “no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”

Someone possesses some sanity:

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:14 AM

Star Member Recursion (24,074 posts)

19. I'm missing what Kelly demonstrated with this?
 
That a person without a criminal record can buy a legal firearm? This is news?

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:23 AM

AtheistCrusader (13,466 posts)

20. None of this story makes any sense at all.
 
Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:27 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

He ALREADY did the assault weapon thing when he bought the Glock and walked out of the store. That pistol is an assault weapon, so-defined. The rifle was just another thing, same classification of weapon. He already proved his point buying the same gun that was used to grievously wound his wife, and kill 6 other people at the Safeway.

Everyone knows this background check is all you need, plenty of media sources have already done it and already reported on it. So nothing to be gained here.

Handing it over to AZ police is a stupid assed thing to do because they are required to RESELL IT by state law. It wasn't used in a crime. It goes back on the market. They do not destroy it.

I don't believe a ****ing word of it. I think he bought that rifle for himself, to keep. That said, it was his right to do so, and his privacy was violated when someone, possibly the store owner or an employee, took his picture and disseminated it to the internet. He has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that was violated.

I also wonder what the deal was with the waiting period. Did he just not want to take possession right away? Does AZ have some waiting period that other states don't have? WTF was that all about? I can walk into a store here in WA, put money on the counter, sign on the line, wait 15 minutes for the phone call, and walk out of the store with it. Why didn't he take it right away in AZ?

It doesn't help his credibility as a gun control advocate that his story makes ZERO logical sense, but he's not being treated fairly in the press either so... ****. Idunno. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, I know that.

 

[thundley4]

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:01 AM

Star Member bluedigger (9,682 posts)

12. None of his business as to Gifford's intentions with the weapon.



Unless he has knowledge of criminal intent, he is interfering with Mr. Gifford's 2A Rights.

He lied and said the gun was for personal use.  If he intended to give the gun away that makes it a straw purchase and is illegal.  Think Fast and Furious, but on a much smaller scale. 

[Chris_]

He lied and said the gun was for personal use.  If he intended to give the gun away that makes it a straw purchase and is illegal.  Think Fast and Furious, but on a much smaller scale. 

DUmmies want people to be able to lie when purchasing firearms.

[thundley4]

DUmmies want people to be able to lie when purchasing firearms.

They also want the mentally ill to be able to.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Response to phantom power (Original post)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:23 AM
Blue_Tires (30,812 posts)

11. Just when I thought I'd seen the most surreal of RW hypocrisy...

I'm tempted to open up my own gun shop just so I can NOT sell to the redneck nutbar loons, since they aren't the "right kind of people"...God, the local whining and tears would overflow the Grand Canyon...

Go for it, Goober.  You probably oughta disclose that intent to the bank financing your business in your business plan, since they might feel you were ripping them off and try to prosecute you criminally when you declare bankruptcy 90 days after opening.  Of course they wouldn't finance you at all if you did tell them that...

It's perfectly legal to discriminate against anyone trying to buy stuff from you in business, as long as it's not on the basis of any legally-prohibited criteria, like race, color, religion, ethnicity, disability, etc. - political affiliation, motivation, or beliefs are NOT one of those prohibited categories.  Look it up, idiots.

[Karin]

Look at them stomp their feet!  I think it's hilarious when they try to talk all "lawerly."  I'm surprised more of them aren't in jail from some of the pretzel logic they use to interpret laws. 

Star Member joeybee12 (41,052 posts)

2. I guess the government can't regulate guns, but some POS store owner in Tuscon can...
 
Yeah, that was the founders intent.

Yeah, that was closer to their intent than what you have in mind. 

[Carl]

Plus they are pissed that what they thought was a political talking point has been pulled away from them.

[GOBUCKS]

The straw purchase law is a powerful weapon used by 0bamaites and their BATF allies against FFL holders.

They set up straw purchase stings trying to catch a clerk selling a firearm to someone who may give it to a third party, then go after the shop's license.

The BATF is just like the local cops recruiting a bearded teenager to entrap people who sell beer.

The guy who cancelled Mark Kelly's despicable grandstand act is lucky to still have his business.

[98ZJUSMC]

You cannot deny someone their 2nd amendment rights based on political intent.

Thank you.  You just torpedoed every single attempt at gun legislation.  Period.

Now, if you were only someone who mattered.

I'm tempted to open up my own gun shop just so I can NOT sell to the redneck nutbar loons, since they aren't the "right kind of people"...God, the local whining and tears would overflow the Grand Canyon...

Oh, not at all, Twinkletoes. We would simply go somewhere else and you would be out of business; deep in debt to creditors and the government.  Win-win for we the Rednecks, as we sip the sweet Schadenfreude.

DUmmies want people to be able to lie when purchasing firearms.

Perfectly acceptable, for the correct political reasons.  God, I so hate this vermin.

[BattleHymn]

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:09 PM

Star Member joeybee12 (41,052 posts)

2. I guess the government can't regulate guns, but some POS store owner in Tuscon can...
 
Yeah, that was the founders intent.

Riddle me this, primitive:  If Giffords is for responsible gun ownership, then why did he try to patronize a piece-of-shit store owner?  Why didn't he go somewhere else?  Why are you guys supporting piece-of-shit stores?

[Airwolf]

They really don't know jack shit about gun laws.  This wouldn't even be news worthy before 1968. If not for Democrat lawmakers this country wouldn't have citizens jumping through hoops to get a gun of any type.  Now that someone that owns a gun store follows your law you ignorant wretches go full on retard because you can't make political hay from it. Assholes, make your damned minds up.

[delilahmused]

Well, he's certainly welcome to go to another gun store. Any store owner (i.e. private citizen with a business) has the right to refuse service to anyone. He could decide he didn't like the color of Mark Kelly's shirt or the way he talked. However, he DID NOT violate Kelly's right to by a weapon. He just refused to let him buy at HIS privately owned business. Another gun store owner might be perfectly willing to sell him said assault rifle.

You people are so stupid. The GOVERNMENT cannot deny his 2nd amendment rights (that's the whole point of the country's recent discussion). Of course, the government can't FORCE a store to sell a man a gun either. You guys lose the argument again because all he proved was that it isn't so easy to buy a weapon.

Cindie