TUCSON, Arizona — Former Space Shuttle Astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who survived a shooting in Tucson, Arizona, attempted to purchase an AR-15 rifle at a gun store near his home earlier this month.
After making the purchase, Kelly, an outspoken gun control advocate, posted the following message on his Facebook page on March 8, 2013:
“Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week. I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.”
After the gun store owner caught wind of Kelly’s intent to use the purchase at his store as a political stunt, the owner terminated the sale to Kelly before he took possession of the rifle and issued the following statement on his Facebook page yesterday:
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.”
Photo Credit: NASA
As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I don't like when people on either side spread disinformation. Form 4473 only asks who the actual buyer is. If someone else gives you money to buy a gun for them, you are not the actual buyer. If you're using your own money to buy a gun for someone else as a gift (as in Mr. Kelly's case), you are the purchaser, and it's perfectly legal. So we can dispense with the whole "Mr. Kelly lied on form 4473" right now.We can also dispense with the fact that Mr. Kelly's First or Second Amendment rights were somehow violated. Since the gun store is not an acting agent of the government, the bill of rights simply does not apply. And unless they had a signed contract of sale, the store was perfectly within its rights to cancel the sale at any point up until the customer has taken delivery.
If weren't for black people this country wouldn't survive check your history about how wars blacks have won for this country you stupid jerk
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.How you connected race with the second amendment is beyond me.Let the liberals take away guns and THEN you will see their TRUE AGENDA.
superfluous: being more than is sufficient. so, the point was already made? nice. did somebody give you that word?
Neil,You may want to read the second amendment since you obviously have not yet read it. The second amendment does not regulate in ANY WAY the purchase of said firearms including saying the above mentioned idiotic example. In fact, under the second amendment, even that statement is lawful since it is part of the Bill of Rights and not part of a regulation of sales.There are LAWS regarding the LAWFUL purchase of firearms and the 2nd amendment is not the LAW that dictates the terms of purchase.Just so you are not inconvenienced, here is a link so you may properly educate yourself. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment I hope this furthers your continuing education.
Actually, Diamondback probably just got a whole bunch of new followers and customers.
get an education!
No, but the raffle winner will have to undergo a background check. If the winner can't pass said check then winner won't get the rifle. Simple. People apparently don't realize that gun sellers face significant jail time if they knowingly sell to a prohibited person. It's always in the sellers best interest to verify the purchaser's ID and background.
If you have ever bought a gun at a legitimate auction then you would know that after you win the gun, the authorities hold the gun until a proper background check has been performed. They only release the gun to the winning bidder after they pass a background check.I'm not knocking you in particular for maybe not knowing this. But time and time again I grow tired of people bashing something they know nothing of. People are scared of what they don't know.
Joseph,I am sorry you don't understand the difference between a right and a privelege. Mr. Kelly was not denied any rights. He does not have a RIGHT to purchase from this company, it is a privelege. The gun shop has the right to sell to whomever they please within the laws they are subject to regarding guns and background checks.If you think he was also denied his first amendment rights then no one can help you since you once again do not understand what a right is and how you can express it.No one was denied anything and your point is not only based on ignorance but is superfluous as well.