Mark Kelly: Hypocrite or Felon?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by r.j.s, Mar 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #1
    Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, purchased a .45 1911 and an AR-15 the other day:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?....215073368547929.71130.163148530407080&type=1

    First, a background check is a background check - they are all the same until you get into NFA items.

    Second, the only way to buy without a background check at a gun show is to buy from a private seller - someone who brings their gun to the show to sell. Dealers must still do background checks. The "gun show loophole" isn't a loophole, it just allows people to sell their private goods to another person without the government getting involved. Note: It is still a felony to sell a firearm to someone you know, or should have known, is not permitted to own one.

    Third, you cannot buy a firearm over the internet without a background check. It must be shipped to a FFL where a check is done when you go to pick it up.

    That aside, by buying the AR-15, he is either a hypocrite and a felon or just a felon.

    Hypocrite: He advocates for the ban of semi-automatic rifles, but he went to purchase the AR-15 for himself, got recognized, and claimed he bought it to give to the Tucson PD. Advocating to ban these rifles, yet buying one, seems a bit hypocritical.

    Felon: He intended to purchased the weapon to give to the PD, which may or may not meet the definition of straw purchase - also a felony, but he lied on the 4473, which is a felony.

    So, which is it? Either way now, he seems to be committing a felony by lying on the 4473.
     
  2. duneriderltr450 macrumors 6502

    duneriderltr450

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Location:
    Oregon
    #2
    So they checked his background and he is not convicted felon. And?

    He bought a semi automatic rifle, not an "assault weapon". Guy is an idiot. Im glad he supported his local gun dealer though.
     
  3. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #3
    hahha...i was going to post something about this..

    why do you say felon?

    IMO biggest hypocrite ever...his story doesn't make sense and Id bet good money that he bought it for himself and than cooked up that story of his when he was outed for buying it...
     
  4. r.j.s thread starter Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    Form 4473, Question 11a.

    Lying on the 4473 is a felony.
     
  5. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #5
    Post the exact wording of the question, and explain why you think he's lying about it.

    AFAICT, question 11a reads:
    Are you the actual buyer/transferee of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person. ...
    Since he's paying for it with his own money, and not someone else's money, and he's (apparently) acting of his own volition, not as a representative of anyone else, I would say he is the "actual buyer" of the firearm.

    A similar situation might arise if I were buying a firearm as a gift for someone else. In that case, I am the actual buyer, because I'm paying for it. As long as I have no knowledge that the person receiving the gifted firearm is disqualified from possessing a firearm, I don't see how I could possibly be charged with making a straw purchase.

    Maybe it depends on what your definition of "on behalf of" means. No one else is giving me the money to make the purchase, and no one else is telling or asking me to make the purchase on their behalf. I'm providing my own money, and making the purchase of my own volition. I'm not acting as a representative of anyone else, nor are the funds provided by anyone else.

    If there's some other explanation for calling this a straw purchase, please provide it.
     
  6. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #6
    Why is he buying weapons to give to local police? Are they not capable of buying weapons on their own?
     
  7. r.j.s, Mar 10, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2013

    r.j.s thread starter Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    I don't think it qualifies as a straw purchase, which is why I said it may or may not be one.

    However, if he intended to immediately transfer the firearm to the PD, he lied on 11a, as he is not the intended transferee.

    The point is that he either intended to take possession and is a hypocrite, or never intended to take possession and may be committing a crime by falsifying the 4473.

    EDIT: It is legal to buy a firearm as a gift for someone whom isn't a prohibited person, but after doing more digging, it seems he only made the claim that he intends to give it to the PD AFTER he was identified as buying the AR-15 and several 30-round magazines.

    The more I look into it, it seems he just got caught buying the rifle and is changing his story to fit the agenda.
     
  8. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #8
    I think the same thing applies in my "gift" situation. If the gift recipient is waiting in the car, and I intend to give the firearm to that person as soon as I walk out of the gun store, am I or am I not the intended transferee?

    I take possession for the amount of time it takes me to get to my car. After that, I am no longer in possession, but I am clearly in possession immediately after performing the purchase.

    I would argue that since I am the actual buyer, the question's wording of "actual buyer/transferee" is a bit unclear. Exactly what is meant by the "/"? Does it mean "or"? Should I read it as "actual buyer or transferee"? Does the adjective "actual" apply to both "buyer" and "transferee", or only to "buyer"? If someone is the "actual buyer" (using their own money, acting of their own volition), does the "/transferee" part even apply?

    If Mark Kelly takes possession and goes home, but leaves the rifle locked in the trunk of his car, and then goes to the Tucson PD an hour later, he's still the actual buyer. If he takes it into his home, then takes it to the PD a month later, he's also still the actual buyer. I think the meaning and scope of "transferee" is unclear in this case.
     
  9. r.j.s thread starter Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    That would be something to take up with the ATF, because it really isn't absolutely clear.

    It is legal to gift a firearm to another person, provided they are able to possess said firearm, but does that include government agencies?

    Like I said, I'm starting to lean away from him actually committing a crime, after doing more research, and leaning more towards him just being a hypocrite. He got caught and now claims that he plans to turn it over to the PD.
     
  10. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #10
    Good question. Probably have to ask ATF on that, too.

    Suppose he does turn it over to Tucson PD, then what? Is he giving it to them for the purpose of having it destroyed? It may seem silly, but it's his money and he can spend it however he wants.

    Or is he giving it to the PD for them to use in some other way, perhaps training or in an actual SWAT situation. What then, does he have a plate engraved for it: "This AR-15 donated by Mark Kelly, U.S.N."?
     
  11. r.j.s thread starter Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    I don't know. I don't think he thought that far ahead. He was probably intending on keeping it, but when someone walked up and said, 'Hey, aren't you Mark Kelly?', he left and decided to change his story.

    Here's the rub, he didn't take it out of the store, which is really odd. Why not?

    IIRC, he will have to fill out another 4473 and have another NICS check done when he goes to pick it up.
     
  12. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #12
    From ARFCOM

    "I think I can answer WHY he didn't leave with the AR-15 in question.

    It was a "USED GUN".

    Diamondback has a "RELEASE DATE" on all used guns. It gives them time to run the SN to make sure it's not stolen.

    You can "BUY" the gun today, but, it will stay IN THE STORE until the release date.
    "
     
  13. r.j.s thread starter Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    Fair enough ... but won't he still have to do another NICS when he does pick it up?
     
  14. glocke12, Mar 10, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2013

    glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #14
    I don't see why he would...but the practice of the store sounds bizarre..you would think they would check to see if it was stolen before selling it.
     
  15. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #15
    He is a hypocrite. He recently was in Colorado testifying about a proposed law that would limit the capacity of magazines to 15 rounds. It is sad.
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16

    Ar15.com?

    Do you have a link?

    ----------

    That wouldn't make him a hypocrite. Someone can buy and own an AR-15 and still think the magazine capacity should be limited to 15-rounds. The hypocrisy would be in buying the weapon while pushing for its ban.
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    Is it hypocracy for the anti-whaling people to obtain permits (so others cannot) and then to do all within their power to prevent whale slaughter?
     
  18. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #18
    You think him buying that AR-15 put a severe dent in AR-15 general availability? :)
     
  19. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #19
    No.

    But it'd be stupid to try to reduce the supply of AR15s through this process - there are, presumably, a limited, exhaustible supply of whaling permits, however the supply of AR15s can be increased even in the face of large demand (i.e., Kelly buying them all up) by increasing production. As a gun control measure, it’s totally ineffective.

    I can think of one good reason for a gun control advocate to purchase a gun - self education. To learn about handling them, their capabilities, and their limits, to get first-hand experience what it’s like to shoot with a 7 round magazine compared to a 30 round magazine... That way, the gun control advocate can speak from a position of knowledge, not fear.
     
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    Intent does matter, but I'm not sure what Kelly was trying to accomplish at Diamondback. He didn't really prove anything and he has to know that such a purchase would become news.


    Raised the price a few half-cents.
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
  22. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #23
    What release dates? I assume you are referring to Arizona law for used gun purchases?

    That was from the comments from a blog in the thread, not from an Arfcom member.
     
  23. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #24
  24. r.j.s thread starter Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #25
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page