Ammo For Sale

« « State religion? | Home | Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-ranged) is ignorant » »

Mark Kelly learns that background checks work

Gabby Gifford’s hubby continues having a rough few weeks. The latest is that he tried to buy a handgun out of state and illegally. He was denied because we already have background checks and you can’t buy handguns out of state. He went to the same gun store and tried to purchase an AR-15 illegally earlier.

22 Responses to “Mark Kelly learns that background checks work”

  1. Divemedic Says:

    So we can hold our breath waiting for ATF to arrest him?

  2. AndyN Says:

    Perhaps I’m misremembering, and I realize different states have different laws regarding this kind of thing, but I’m fairly certain that every time I’ve moved and gotten a new driver’s license in my new home state I’ve been required to surrender or destroy the driver’s license from my old home state.

    So Kelly first misrepresented his home of record, probably presented a no longer valid ID as proof of that misrepresentation, attempted to buy a handgun in a state that he claimed wasn’t his home, and attempted to make a straw purchase. Exactly how many gun related crimes does a celebrity have to commit and publicize before law enforcement expresses an interest?

  3. Rivrdog Says:

    If the gun store wants to make a complaint, and the US Attorney is a courageous fellow, he could be charged with attempting to violate.

    That being a gun crime, he might lose his 2A rights for a while.

  4. AndyN Says:

    Is that really the way criminal law is supposed to work, Rivrdog? If somebody commits a crime against the government and officers of the government are aware of it but no private citizen complains, no charges are filed? This wasn’t a crime committed against the gun store owner, he’s got no personal stake in the matter.

  5. wastme Says:

    He’s pushing for all these new laws. They should make an example out of him. But they won’t because he’s part of the dog and pony show he puts his wife through. I have to wonder if she even understands what she is saying when they have he up there trying to read their anti-gun propaganda.

  6. Mu Says:

    My guess is that his attorney would claim he never intended to actually purchase the gun but was just trying to show how easy it is to circumvent the rules. And he probably made sure that the local federal DA knows where his paycheck comes from and won’t go after him for filing a wrong 4473.

  7. Bram Says:

    So he quit NASA to become a propagandist – waving around his crippled wife like a banner, and a full-time asshole? Great career move.

  8. mariner Says:

    Great career move.

    It seems to be working for him. How many people knew of Mark Kelly when he was an astronaut?

  9. Rob Crawford Says:

    “My guess is that his attorney would claim he never intended to actually purchase the gun but was just trying to show how easy it is to circumvent the rules.”

    Except that “showing how easy it is to circumvent the rules” would require actually purchasing the gun. As it is, he demonstrated that we do, in fact, have laws and that people do, in fact, get declined for sales because of those laws.

    And if he INTENDED to circumvent the laws — for any reason — then he INTENDED to violate the laws. And should be facing charges.

    There’s more evidence that he committed a crime than there are in many of the cases the BATFEIEIO has successfully prosecuted.

  10. Sigivald Says:

    His attempted purchase of the AR that the store denied was not illegal, though.

    Buying it “to turn it in” is not a straw purchase, no matter what the gun store owner wants to think.

    It’s legal to buy a gun “to give to someone else” (assuming the someone else is not prohibited). This is why buying a gun as a gift is not a felony.

    It’s a straw purchase if you pretend it’s for you but someone else made the purchase decision and is paying for it, per the ATF’s own guidance on straw purchases.

  11. Will Brown Says:

    Ok, just to make sure I haven’t missed something in this saga of ineptitude, what was the illegality in the AR purchase? And please don’t say “straw purchase”; it is entirely legal to purchase a firearm as a gift as long as both the buyer and recipient aren’t “prohibited persons” (for whatever reason, criminal background, age restriction, etc). Kelly himself is still legally permitted to buy a gun (after jumping through the oh-so-noninfringing hoops we all do), the Tucson PD (the stated giftee of the AR) isn’t prohibited, so straw purchase won’t wash (see the instructions to buyers on the back of any Form 4473, something the seller might consider as well per Breitbart). The seller not wanting to deal with a dick is also perfectly legal btw, but what was Kellys crime in the AR purchase?

    As to the pistol, the story clearly says the AZ ID he presented on the second attempt passed the background check; simple ignorance of the law is a more likely seeming explanation for this fool presenting an out of state ID than does deliberate subterfuge. Other than posting a misleading (if not quite outright fraudulent) video online, what crime did Kelly commit on the second attempt at a successful purchase of a pistol? He presented a legal (apparently, he did pass the background check he submitted it to) AZ drivers license and, despite speculation above, there is no evidence he didn’t surrender his TX license to get the AZ version, so again, where is the crime?

    Agreed that he’s a dick (and possible wife abuser – psychologically at least) and a publisher of an apparently deliberately misleading video; neither of those fails the requirements to qualify as a gun buyer without formal legal sanction of that despicable behavior. Fault the guy deservedly all you like, but please stop promoting his name and cause falsely. That hurts the rest of us gun owners more than either Kelly or his cause ever could on their own.

  12. IllTemperedCur Says:

    The gun store owner does have a stake in the attempted out of state ID purchase because it was an attempt to draw him into a felony. Not to mention an attempt to destroy his business. Whether that rises to the level of a criminal act is another question, but to my mind it was most definitely a hostile, aggressive act.

  13. Sid Says:

    Mark Kelley worked for NASA?

  14. Obamao Says:

    He’ll be a Texas resident again before his next paycheck (income tax).

  15. TigerStripe Says:

    @Obamao, Arizona can keep him we don’t want him back. He should move to a blue state and leave the good people of both states alone…


  16. squashpup Says:

    Sigivald says, “Its legal to buy a gun to give to someone else (assuming the someone else is not prohibited).”

    Form 4473 says, “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.”

    Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines.

  17. B Dubya Says:

    I totally agree that Mr. Kelly is a hypocritical POS regarding his stated positions on private ownership of those evil guns and his covert attempts to get him some of those evil guns. Sounds like a case where liberal applications of tar, feathers and a hand hewn fence rail are indeed warranted.

    But. The cheesy house daddy of the shot to dollrags congresscritter is a citizen of the United States. He holds that status, as do all US citizens, in all 50 of the several states (ok, 57 states) where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is law.

    What part of “shall not be infringed” is met by out of state purchase refusal if the buyer is indeed a US citizen?

    Maybe tar and feathers is needed on a lot more folks in this country than just this one man kept by a Democrat apparatchik.

  18. Crawler Says:

    I vividly remember watching Mark Kelly being interviewed on TV hours after the cowardly subhuman – whose name I’ll never repeat – murdered and wounded those people that dreary day in Tucson.

    When asked by the biased media head the “never let a crisis go to waste” question regarding his opinion on the current gun control laws, Kelly replied, “That’s just the price we pay for living in a free society”.

    Judging Kelly’s actions as of late, I’d say NASA dropped the ball and is clearly responsible for his latest radical shenanigans. Kelly should still be in quarantine from his last space mission.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if some “thing” bursts out of his chest in a day or two…

  19. Crotalus Says:

    So Uncle Fester can’t get his gun after all, eh? Since he pretty much announced that he was going to “straw purchase’ it, the dealer shut him down. HAH!!

  20. Will Brown Says:

    In a probably vain effort to reduce the self-abasement of ignorance on this rather basic topic of information being determinedly displayed by my fellow gun owners, I beseech you all to take a more than passing glance at this DoJ/BATFE web page.

    Should you bother to make the effort, you can read for yourselves on the 4th page of the pdf file, in the entry cleverly and misleadingly titled “Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer”, the following cryptic passage: “You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.”

    While you’re there, you might also avail yourselves of the other definitions and instructions provided that make clear to anyone with the reading skills of a 12 y/o what all those big words just quoted actually mean to us the gun buying public.

    Kelly never even attempted a “straw purchase” and, as Uncle pointed out, he proved the existing background check system already functions as the gun banners claim they want it to. Now, can we all just stfu about this and stick to Kelly’s actual hypocrisy and otherwise disingenuous behavior?

  21. Justthisguy Says:

    Oh, is he “special” because he’s an Astronaut? Here’s an astronaut I went to high school with, while we wore the same (band) uniform.

    Please see:

    We all knew him as a very manly guy, even at 16, and a straight arrow, and an excellent trumpet player. These days, he is a retired astronaut, a retired Captain, USN, and by all reports, still a badass musician. I just betcha, that if he has any guns, he didn’t cheat to get them.

    Oh, he’s also as black as the Ace of Spades. (see his official NASA pic, wearing pressure suit)

    I was proud to wear the same (band) uniform as did he, when we were young high-school kids.

  22. Sigivald Says:

    Squash: Yes. And that does not contradict what I said. It is the same as what I said.

    The “actual buyer” is the person who is actually doing the transaction. Note that it does not say “eventual end possessor”, but “actual buyer”.

    If I buy a gun to give to my mom for her birthday, I am the “actual buyer”, because I am the one making the purchase decision and paying for the firearm; my Mom didn’t give me the money to go buy her the gun she’d picked out. (If she had? That would be a straw purchase.)

    A straw purchase is where someone else decides on what gun to get and pays for it, and I pretend I’m the “actual buyer”, and that really is a felony, as you say.

    See Here, p. 165 (PDF): ” Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances.”

    The ATF itself says quite clearly that a bona fide gift purchase – which would cover “bought it with my own money and my own decision, purely to turn it in as a PR stunt” – is not a straw purchase.