Disagree.From the LGS said:"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 said in the statement.
I have to agree. We as supporters of the 2nd amendment continuosly espouse our right to keep arms, but we canmnot depry the rights of other amendments when it does not agree with what we believe. The 1st amendment guarantees free speech, the anti's have the right to share their oppinions wether we like it or not. If the purchase was legal, then there was no reason to rescind the sale. To do so solely because the sale would be used in a flammatory manner against weapon sales and the 2nd amendment is a denial of the purchaser right to express themselves IMO. I understand it is the shopkeepers store, but his motivation was, according to the article, based on his believed intent of the purchaser. I will assume as a firearms dealer he is pro 2A, and has hard feelings against the anti's like many of us. Denying the sale makes because of this makes him no different than the anti's who want to take our guns, even though the 2A gives us the right to do so. Doing what to others which you tell the others not to do to you makes him a Hypocrit IMO. whats good for the goose is good for the gander..... lead by example..... treat others as you want to be treated..... you get the idea.Disagree.
While I agree it's encumbent upon the seller to withhold sale in situations in which it's clear the purchase is on behalf of someone else (ie, "straw" sale), I disagree that judging the measure of one's "use" of a purchased product (so long as that's lawful) should dictate whether a seller gets to rescind a sale.
It shouldn't matter whether a new buyer wants to shoot it, mount it, or set fire to it, or even to acquire it merely to make a point to his friends and scheming cohorts who will applaud the ease with which he's able to be a citizen in possession of his 2A-guaranteed right to keep/bear arms. Grousing about purpose isn't the seller's call, IMO, when that "grousing" gets in the way of a lawful and appropriate purchase.
A case could be made the buyer purchased something other than what was really offered for sale, since apparently its availability hinged on whether one was not a died-in-the-wool anti-gunner in disguise. Fraudulent offering??
While I think this buyer's intent was to prove points with his politically-wrongheaded cohorts, he has every right to make a lawful purchase for such purposes if he chooses to. And if that's what motivates him, he'll live with those motivations (pitiful though they seem to me).
EDIT -- To paraphrase (from the film An American President):
" America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.
Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
So long as its lawfully transferred, there's no issue IMO. Even if the decision to "sell" (or transfer) is made soon after purchase.He indicated on his paperwork it was for his personal use and HE was the intended recipient. Then he publicly announced it was NOT for him and he intended to transfer (I.e. donate) it to someone else. Seems like a great reason to deny the purchase. Lie on the form and you should be charged.
If that is true then why is not the gun store owner refusing to do NICS checks and selling to folks of all ages in protest of those infringements? Why did he buy a gun store kowing that the right to bare arms is infringed? By following the rules is he not perpetuating the problem? I mean if I took an oath I would not break it, even if only half way LOL:wave:Just a thought but perhaps the gun store owner has in the past took the oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution, discovered this buy was a way to attempt to undermine and destroy part of it and upheld his oath in protecting it from an obvious attempt to illegally infringe upon it using that weapon. Just a thought:yup:
Speaking opinions about a topic doesn't constitute illegal infringement via use of the product. Were the buyer actually in Congress, say, under an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, IMO that would be another matter. His wife's a former politico. Were she to have still been in Congress and made the same purchase, she too would have every right to speak opinions about the ease of purchase, threats of the product, etc. The purchase wouldn't be the issue, nor its use as an example for whatever the buyer was choosing to make. IMO, only direct attempts to create/vote legislation into effect that would infringe on the 2A constitutes infringement on the 2A. The rest is just talk, it seems to me, equally protected under the 1A. Reprehensible as we might feel the message happens to be.Just a thought but perhaps the gun store owner has in the past took the oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution, discovered this buy was a way to attempt to undermine and destroy part of it and upheld his oath in protecting it from an obvious attempt to illegally infringe upon it using that weapon. Just a thought:yup: