Defensive Carry banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,935 Posts
I like this part of the article.

"He added that the store will return Kelly's money, donate the rifle to the Arizona Tactical Officers Association to be raffled as a fundraiser and make an additional contribution of $1,295 -- the value of the rifle -- to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,648 Posts
He is just another left wing hypocrite attempting to gain personal recognition. IMO, his actions have proven to an embarrassment to his wife and himself and only gave proof that the system works for the law abiding citizens. He will not get his AK and I am quite sure he will have a hard time purchasing a weapon in the future, at least in Arizona.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,726 Posts
I guess Mr. MacKinlay decided he didn't want Mr. Kelly as a customer. After all, it IS his store, and he is within his right to deny service to anyone he desires.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,311 Posts
I figure Kelly for a run at political office, sooner than later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
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.
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.
"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,788 Posts
The gun store turned a potential negative advertisement and anti-gun demonstration into a positive advertisement. Mr Kelly's demonstration of "how easy" did not work very well. And the donation still happened.

I admire the gun shops positive gun rights stance but I am sure this will not get the same media attention as Mr Kelly's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
After Mr. Kelly made his comments it became apparent that selling him the rifle wasn't in the best interests of the gun store in particular and the second amendment in general. I don't blame him for stopping the sale. It may be that when Mr. Kelly agreed to buy the rifle he said it was for his personal use and his comments exposed the lie. I don't personally know. The same freedom that allows Mr. Kelly to buy the rifle allows Mr. MacKinlay to refuse the sale. Mr. Kelly is still free to attempt to purchase another AR15 from another store if he chooses.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
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.
"
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
If the only reason to deny the purchase is 'political intent' then that is an extremely poor and hypocritical reason. The denial is done with 'political intent'

If allowing the purchase to proceed, knowing he is going to pass the rifle on to the police, is a straw purchase under state or federal law (I have heard both yes and no, if it would be a straw purchase) then he is right to deny the sale and should say so.

If Mr. Kelly wants to spend money using the 2A to make a 1A statement, it is his right, even though we may disagree with his point. IMO, an honored astronaut 'proving' he can pass a background check to purchase an 'assault rifle' is not much of a statement...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,012 Posts
CBS did happen to cover it. Currently their are two stories on CBSNews.com. One with the cancellation of the sales, and the other a "feel good story" of amateur video showing him pulling a dog of a poor little seal.

Here is the kicker, the story about sale being canceled is buried, and not found on their front page at all, and the whole last half the story changes the subject is back to the heroic act of pulling the dog off that poor little seal. (Such heroics, so brave.. makes my heart cry). A full second story of this heroic act is dedicated to the hypocrite on the fist page.

The gun story is here.

My personal opinion is that Mark Kelly lied, he stated it was for personal use, yet he did it for public purposes, and I wonder if he used his anti gun political action committee money to use try to buy it. The screwy part is, what did he have to prove? He went out and bought it to prove something that is known fact, a law abiding citizen goes through the steps to make the purchase, and can do it fairly easily. My question is.. so what did you try to prove again? It is the one piece of many regulations that the government imposes on us that actually is fairly efficient and fast. What Mr. Kelly wants is the government to become less efficient, more cumbersome, and more costly, and treating law abiding citizens like criminals, while doing nothing to stop criminals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
"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. "

I tend to disagree. As an owner of a couple businesses I have domain over my products. When a customer, in the process of purchasing my product, espouses an interest in defaming my business, person, the product or my way of life in the purchase of said product I have denied the transaction. At the end of the day we all have our reputations to uphold, it's not always profitable, but I still have to look at my self in the mirror.

It is as much as the gun store owners responsibility not to sell to a guy with evil intentions in his eye as it is to move product. The best gun store owners run the riff raf out to keep their reputation as an upstanding business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,072 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
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.
So long as its lawfully transferred, there's no issue IMO. Even if the decision to "sell" (or transfer) is made soon after purchase.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
With all his mouthing off he does not deserve the honor of owning a firearm IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Seller: Donuts, 5 for $1.

Buyer: I'll take 2. I'll use one for macro-nutrient testing to prove the danger of donuts, and I'll toss one out the back window to make a point to my donut-despising friends.

Seller: You're not a "legitimate" buyer, pal, since you're not acquiring these donuts for "personal use." I hereby rescind this sale. Here's your money back. Go elsewhere, for your donuts.



:scratchchin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,956 Posts
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:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
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:
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
Sounds like a straw man purchase to me. :wink: Glad the store owner could tell on the application. I wonder if charges will be filed...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top