Mark Kelly Denied 2nd Amendment Right

PostmodernProphet said:
no, as is clearly obvious Kelly intended to give the gun to someone else which means his purchase was against the law.......the gun shop owner was simply complying with what the government required......
Click to expand...

hmmm....hold your horses there, Mary!

Howey said:
You just shot yourself in the foot on that one (tee hee).

He was honest from the beginning about who he intended to buy the gun for, so once again no law has been broken.
Click to expand...

Gawd, I love being a genius!

SmarterthanYou said:
he was? he told the gun store owner he intended to give it to law enforcement somewhere? please show that bit of evidence.
Click to expand...

SmarterthanYou said:
i know that, but i want to see howey tap dance his way around his bullshit claim.
Click to expand...

What was that there, Ms. Fife?

I invite y'all to watch and listen to the following. I understand it's from a scurrious source, but brings up an interesting point.

If Mark Kelly buys a gun from a gun shop that didn't belong to the gun shop, what is the gun shop owner guilty of?

hmmmmm.....

If the gun shop owner (just like Mark Kelly) decides to buy the gun and donate it to the SAME MOTHERFUCKIN POLICE DEPARTMENT MARK KELLY PLANNED TO...

WHAT IS THE GUN SHOP OWNER GUILTY OF??????


That, my friends, is a major fucking burn.

Go away. The mo is superior to you!

 
Damocles said:
According to his own press, he bought one to give to another person. Because of laws about those types of weapons, it is illegal to purchase one of those with the express intent to deliver it to a third party. What he was doing was illegal, he couldn't buy the weapon because he was breaking the law, a law that he propounds as good.
Click to expand...


I though it said that the sale did not go through, I thought that was the entire point of this post.
 
Lucius Cornelius Sulla said:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...owner-cancels-mark-kellys-ar-15-purchase?lite

It's in the first sentence: "An Arizona gun store owner says he will not sell Mark Kelly the AR-15 rifle that the vocal advocate for tighter gun control bought earlier this month."

"The store was required to hold the rifle purchased by Kelly for 20 days, MacKinlay told the Associated Press after Kelly purchased the firearm."

Took all of half a second on Google.
Click to expand...


This is clearly a misuse of the word "bought". When you buy something, you recieve it. He might have tried to buy something, he did not buy it as the sale did was not completed.
 
Lucius Cornelius Sulla said:
Yeah, because I, another FFL holder, would argue against a business owners right to deny service as they see fit.
Click to expand...


So you admit that the gun store owner was just being a giant tool to Gifford's hubby, by denying him the gun.

That's why the gun store owner held the weapon for 20 days...he found out what Gifford's hubby wanted to do with the gun and he immediately began looking for a way to deny the sale.

As I suspected, this whole "unlawful sale" nonsense is just the gun store owner CYA.
 
Jarod said:
I once paid for a secret decoder ring I ordered from a crackerjack box, it never arrived... I never actually bought it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you did. Shitty postal service fucked you on your purchase.

So what you're saying is if I pay someone for illegal drugs, but don't receive them, I can't be charged with a crime?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So you admit that the gun store owner was just being a giant tool to Gifford's hubby, by denying him the gun.

As I suspected, this whole "unlawful sale" nonsense is just the gun store owner CYA.
Click to expand...

I admit that any business may deny service as they see fit. If the gun store owner thought it was a risk to his business and may be an illegal act, it is his DUTY to deny the purchase.
 
Kelly might could be charged with the crime of attempted purchase of a firearm under false pretense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top