Diamondback Police Supply Cancels Mark Kelly’s AR-15 Purchase

 AR-15 (courtesy survivaltechniques101.com)

“A Tucson gun store owner has decided to rescind the sale of a military-style rifle to Mark Kelly, the husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,” foxnews.com reports, “after Kelly said he had intended the purchase to make a political point about how easy it is to obtain the kind of firearms he’s lobbying Congress to ban.” The owner of Arizona’s Diamondback Police Supply posted his decision to cancel the sale on Facebook. [Full text after the jump.] Bottom line: Douglas MacKinlay considered the former astronaut’s public claim—that he intended to donate the rifle to the police—as a potential “straw purchase.” No word yet from Kelly’s camp, who are facing additional scrutiny following a liveleak.com video of Kelly’s intervention in his daughter’s dog’s attack on a baby seal. And no I did not just make that up . . .

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.

[h/t Skippy Sanchez]

comments

  1. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Good for him. Such an elegant way of turning the tables, and quite right too! No better way to be foisted than by your own petard.

    1. avatar Cyrano says:

      Hoisted, there I fixed it for you. Hoisted by your own petard means thrown in the air or blown up by your own grenade. FYI.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        I believe the exact phrase is “HOIST by his own petard”; a petard being a device affixed to a gate or wall to blow it the f through, or down.

        The word “petard” is derived from a French word for “to pass gas”. So let the fart jokes commence.

    2. avatar APBTFan says:

      Too bad the media won’t report the whole story. Not even two minutes ago the local news mentioned the cancel of the sale but zero mention about auctioning the rifle or giving money to Eddie Eagle.

  2. avatar NS says:

    your move, Mark

  3. avatar dirk diggler says:

    it would have been more ballsy to call Kelly to pick up his rifle, arrange a pick up time, and then have the feds and media waiting to see a straw purchase arrest

    1. Yes!…. YES!!…YES!!!!

    2. avatar Pyratemime says:

      But such an arrest “would not serve the public interest or promote the public safety.” Not to mention given the history of feds in AZ the rifle would likely turn up south of the border rather than an evidence locker.

    3. avatar Leo Atrox says:

      What Mark Kelly intended to do was technically legal under the law. In the form, it does specifically state that, for the purposes of form 4473, the “Actual Buyer” is a person “purchasing the firearm for yoursel for otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself. You are also the actual buyer if you are legitimately acquiring the firearm as a gift for a third party.”

      Since he would technically be buying this with his own money and not receiving money from a third party to purchase it on behalf of that third party, he would be gifting the firearm and not “straw purchasing” (buying on behalf of another person) under the law.

      So, while the gun store owner has the right to refuse a sale, Kelly is in no danger of being arrested.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        Well, yes, if he used his own cash.

        Thing is, given the current climate, were I a firearm store owner, I’d be mighty suspicious – I had reason to believe the gun was to be given to someone else, and didn’t know for certain that the funds were the purchaser’s own?

        It just sounds funny.

        Bottom line, I can see it being a gray area, in which case I’d argue the right thing to do is to quash the sale.

      2. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

        True, but he displayed discretion and chose not to be a tool of sanctimonious anti 2nd. movement

    4. avatar William Burke says:

      Except they wouldn’t do it. Are you forgetting who the media and police work for?

  4. avatar racer88 says:

    Hooray! The gun store took Kelly’s publicity stunt and turned it into their OWN statement. They system WORKS! It keeps guns out of the WRONG HANDS.

  5. avatar Adam says:

    Isn’t it a felony to lie on the federal form?

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      He did not fill out a From 4473.

      1. avatar Chuck says:

        He did fill it out, all that was left to do was sign it upon pickup.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          The form is meaningless and without legal effect without his signature.

          I suppose there might be some bogus “intent” crime, but why bother?

  6. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I saw this story last night, but the one I read somehow left out both the raffle and the Eddie Eagle donation angles, even though the story was fairly lengthy. I wonder why?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      It did make sure to recount the story of his wife’s shooting, though. Curious, that.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        Media has to stick to their agenda, my goodness if they give the guys with the guns a good name, then what kind of story would that be?

    2. Too classy for the MSM to report…

  7. avatar Thrawn says:

    re: the dog video

    Improper control of his dog aside, isn’t the dog just using it’s natural predatory instinct? Is the dog really at fault here? Seems more like a human issue than a dog issue. Terribly unfortunate but people seem to forget what dogs ARE.

    1. avatar JAS says:

      My family bred AKC registered German Shepherds for dog shows and as guard dogs. We bred hundreds of dogs over the years and owned some superb dogs imported from Germany. If ANY of the dogs showed ANY sign of self-motivated aggression (vs. trained on command) they were immediately put down, no ifs or buts. I won’t get into the details but one of my own personal dogs had to be put down for that reason.

      You see, when you breed dogs you eliminate all the negative qualities through selection. Uncommanded attacks by dogs are a big no-no in the dog breeding world. You WANT to breed that out. Best example are pointers. Dogs that jump on the birds are never bred. This seems to not be the case with Pit bull Terrier breeders for some reason.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Hounds are not commanded. You let them loose. I have two coonhounds, an English and a Plott, who will run down any non domestic mammal. If they go after a small animal and the prey doesn’t make it up a tree it gets shredded. Despite their hunting behavior they are excellent family dogs and bond well with people especially children.

      2. avatar Billy Colman says:

        Hey JAS in Schutzhund, the breed test for the GSD, there is a protection phase. After the blind search and bark and hold there is an escape bite. Where in the exercise is an attack command given by the handler? IT’S NOT. It is an “uncommanded” attack based on helper movement. And so are several other bites in the SchH 3 routine. Get your $hit straight.

        1. avatar Buuurr says:

          You mad, Bro?

      3. avatar Buuurr says:

        You’re right, Jas. We look for the same thing with our East German Shepherds too. We use them for SAR and Corpse/relic findings. Any intent not owner made means the dog is tossed if correction doesn’t remove the trait. Looking for a bone but you jumped a chipmunk? Flunked. I don’t know why they don’t have courses like that for Pits and whatnot. Maybe because Pit owners treat their dogs like mothers treat their murdering son? They can’t do no wrong?

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Was the dog off-leash at the time? Was that against the law or a city ordinance?

      Is a powerful bulldog really an appropriate companion for a child, a child who clearly lacked the ability to control such a powerful “assault canine”. Why does anyone need a bulldog anyway – surely a chihuaha or miniature poodle would do?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        That they were trying to stop the dog by hitting him with a bit of SEAWEED tells you everything about your question you need to know. Too much dog for responsible people. Now a FIST, that might give him pause. Or a kick in the throat.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      I’m sorry, but owning a pit bull reveals a HELL of a lot about a person.

      1. avatar janklow says:

        that they like an excellent breed of dog? i agree

      2. Just like owning an assault weapon reveals a HELL of a lot about a person, right? You guys are so quick to jump on the “assault weapon of dogs” with zero information, facts or data yet simultaneously claim unalienable rights to assault weapons because you have all of the facts and utterly reject any limitations to your rights by dismissing the opposition’s position as factless. What do they call that?? oh yeah, HYPOCRISY. I support your rights to choose guns of any type to protect yourself AND your right to choose the type of dog that is best for your family. That is a philosophically consistent position. Being for gun rights and against dog rights is not. Either you are on or you’re off, pick one – Otherwise you are a hypocritical a@@hole just like the gun grabbers. Gun hysteria and pit bull hysteria are exactly the same issue. For the record I am gun owner, an NRA member and have owned bull breed dogs for over 25 years. Have some integrity, man.

        1. avatar Buuurr says:

          Thanks for the post but I’ll give you a little information about where I live. Pit Bulls are banned in areas outside the city (why they are not in the city is beyond me). But they have been banned in the smaller, outlying cities around where I live. It has been found through arrests and reports that Pits are used by 65% of the dealers in my area. So, Pits have been banned. You can have a dobi or even a mix just not pits. Take from that what you will.

          I would also like to point out that this is a common scene among many Pit owners. They don’t know how to handle the dog and have often not provided the dog with adequate, if any, training. I can’t tell you how many times the skinny 15 year old down the street weighing 60 pounds soaking wet has been dragged down on the sidewalk because the three Pits he is walking (what’s that? 200 pounds of dog meat? 250?) saw a squirrel. You can take from that what you will.

          No, Pits are not the most biting dog out there… that’s the Dachshund. BUT when Pits bite, as seen above, it usually results in death or disfigurement.

          The point I am trying to make here is that whether its gun or a dog you better be able to use it right and lawfully.

        2. I can say all the same things about irresponsible gun owners, gang bangers and other kinds of a@@holes who own guns … and I can take every reference to “pit bull” in your paragraph there and replace it with “assault weapon” and it doesn’t lose a whit of its meaning.

          No one can tell me that here is the smallest difference between banning “pit bulls” and banning “assault weapons” and if you insist there is I’ll call you a liar and a willful ignorant with an uninformed opinion. 🙂

          My point is: There is a difference between saying “people have a right to their private property and the Government should not have the right to pass judgement on whether they are responsible enough to own it or not” (and living with the irresponsible that are bound to emerge as a result) and having the Government pass laws against ownership so that the community can be “safe”.

          Gun owners by the large are in the camp of “assume I am responsible and allow me to manage myself” and not in the camp of “assume everyone is irresponsible and ban it for everyone’s safety”. But when you straddle the line and want everyone to assume you are responsible so that you can keep your guns but assume that dog owners are irresponsible simply because of the type of dog they own: that is Hypocrisy and it is a totally inconsistent position to take on the two topics. Especially since everything that is said about “assault weapons” that is false, a dramatization, and hysteria-induced is just so with “pit bulls”.

          Notice I am not even paying attention to how you assume in your little dissertation that most pit bull owners are irresponsible and/or crack dealers … lumping me into a category because I own a certain type of dog … did you see me lump you in with deranged lunatics because you own a certain type of weapon? See the parallels yet? Trust me, they are ALL there. I am sure you are completely unaware of how what you project onto me all that is wrong with the hysteria about pit bulls with what you wrote. Should I forgive you? Would you forgive me if I projected all that is wrong with the hysteria about AR-15s onto you with what I wrote?

          I know how to handle my dogs and I am a responsible dog owner. I also happen to be a responsible gun owner. It is no one’s business but mine what I own and what I do with my stuff. Until and unless my keeping of my private property infringes on your life in some way it’s just none of your business. Bottom line. I work to Keep it That Way and that is all you need to know. I also accept no accountability for anyone else and their level of responsibility or lack thereof – whether we’re talking about guns or dogs so I’ll appreciate no one lumping me into any particular category of person just because of what type of dog or what type of weapon I choose for my family. I have nothing in common with irresponsible gun owners or dog owners and I will not shoulder any of their shame. I certainly won’t allow anyone to punish me for their bad behavior.

          … and p.s. IMO: Anyone on this blog who subscribes to dog bans and lumps people into a category based on what type of dog they own is no better than a yellow-bellied, lying, cowardly, emotional, gray-matter-challenged hypocritical gun grabber.

      3. avatar InBox485 says:

        I’m not sure where you are going with this, but breed discrimination is bigotry. Plain and simple. Pits are used by bad guys for the exact same reason they are used by good guys. They are extremely intelligent and have good discernment abilities. They have one of the best temperament scores as family pets. They will also tear the ever loving $h!t out of anybody threatening the family they protect. Ergo, dealers can have a pit and have a free layer of security without a weapon charge, and families can have a layer of security that frankly is second only to a gun that is ready to go 24/7/365 without the risk of a gun being out in the same manner.

        1. avatar Buuurr says:

          “InBox485 says:
          March 27, 2013 at 16:17
          I’m not sure where you are going with this, but breed discrimination is bigotry. Plain and simple. Pits are used by bad guys for the exact same reason they are used by good guys. They are extremely intelligent and have good discernment abilities. They have one of the best temperament scores as family pets. They will also tear the ever loving $h!t out of anybody threatening the family they protect. Ergo, dealers can have a pit and have a free layer of security without a weapon charge, and families can have a layer of security that frankly is second only to a gun that is ready to go 24/7/365 without the risk of a gun being out in the same manner.”

          No, I guess you don’t. You should read it again. I am saying that the vast majority of dog owners out there don’t know how and don’t ever get their dog properly trained. Re-read. You should be able to glean what I am saying.

          I understand that it isn’t the dogs fault what it is. What I am saying is that you need to be a certain type of person to correctly manage a certain type of dog. It isn’t hard. $400 bucks most anywhere in this country and you have the best dog you will ever have no matter the breed. No one wants to shell out though. I am not blaming the dog. I am blaming the people. We owned one when I was young. They are everything you describe them as.

          And if you missed that point I will throw it out there again for you. I don’t want you thinking me a bigot. haha

          “The point I am trying to make here is that whether its gun or a dog you better be able to use it right and lawfully.”

          Got that?

        2. avatar Buuurr says:

          “They will also tear the ever loving $h!t out of anybody threatening the family they protect. Ergo, dealers can have a pit and have a free layer of security without a weapon charge, and families can have a layer of security that frankly is second only to a gun that is ready to go 24/7/365 without the risk of a gun being out in the same manner.”

          Yeah, that’s why area around me don’t allow them. They value their DEA agents is my guess.

        3. avatar InBox485 says:

          My response was to William Burke ;). He implied that owning a pit meant something was wrong with you, and I said that he is an ignorant bigot if he actually thinks that.

  8. avatar EdC says:

    Actually, I think buying a firearm for donation/gift purposes would be considered “personal use” For example, if I bought a gun with the intent to gift it to someone who is not prohibited to possess a firearm, that’s not a “straw purchase.”

    My understanding of “straw purchase” is when a person buys a firearm with the intent to transfer it to someone who is prohibited from possession one, like a felon, for example.

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      I think the question on the form says something like “Is it for your own personal use?”. (Sorry for my bad memory if that’s wrong.)
      Therefore, a planned donation of any kind would be a lie if one checked the yes square. I’d let the guy come in and fill out the form, and if he checks “no”, deny him the weapon. If he checked “yes”, I would ask him if he’s lying on the form or to the public.

      1. avatar csmallo says:

        Gifts are considered personal use.
        The 4473 instructions for question 11a state “You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. “

        1. avatar Leo Atrox says:

          This. As long as Kelly was not receiving funds from the third party to acquire it on his/their behalf, he is working within the law. It is only a “straw purchase” if Kelly was buying it on behalf of a third party. Buying it with his own funds and gifting it is completely legal.

        2. avatar Patrick says:

          Oh wow, thanks! I didn’t know. I’ll look up the details.

  9. avatar Bdub says:

    That shows real class. I’d do business with them in a second.

  10. avatar Jamaal says:

    I love the irony. Don’t get me wrong. I own a pit bull. Best dog I’ve ever owned. Absolutely the smartest dog I’ve been around. His dog appeared to be either a pit bull or an American bulldog by it’s coloring, build, and head structure. Both breeds have been under attack for being aggressive (can be true to smaller animals but not always true to humans). So, he can own a breed that many states and communities ban for being dangerous to humans yet he wants to ban certain types of modern hunting and sporting weapons? Hypocrite to the extreme.

  11. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Thanks anyway Cyrano, but it is foisted – and has nothing to do with thrown grenades. A “petard” is something else entirely – more like a modern sachel charge. God, it gets pedantic around here.

    1. avatar aircooledTOM says:

      I see what you did there. You clever fellow. Gotta love puns on the intrrnets.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      It may be pedantic, but Cyrano’s correction was correct. You’re correct that it’s probably closer to a satchel charge than a hand grenade, as it was referring to a small explosive used to blow a door or gate open. On the other hand, you’re completely wrong about “foist vs hoist.” Foist is “to pass something false off as being worthy,” and makes no sense in this context. Hoist, on the other hand, is to raise (or in this case “blow up”) and Shakespeare (the original source of the phrase) agrees with me:

      “For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
      Hoist with his own petar. And ’t shall go hard,
      But I will delve one yard below their mines,
      And blow them at the moon.”
      Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4

    3. avatar Frank Williams says:

      You’re right about “petard.” It was a gunpowder bomb dating back to the 1500s used to breech doors, gates and walls. But it is “hoist,” not “foist,” as in Hamlet, act III, scene 4, lines 206 and 207: “For ’tis sport to have the engineer/ Hoist with his own petar …”

    4. avatar anonymous says:

      > But it is “hoist,” not “foist,” as in
      > Hamlet, act III, scene 4, lines 206 and 207

      You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.

    5. avatar Chris says:

      You’re still adamantly wrong. It is indeed hoist/hoisted. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard

    6. avatar anonymous says:

      In Ferengi it’s “foisted by Picard”.

    7. avatar William Burke says:

      Wrong:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard

      “Hoist”, and it has a HELL of a lot to do with the petard in question.

      Maybe you should look it up before waving the wrong flag.

  12. avatar Chas says:

    You wait. The media will somehow turn this around to make Mark Kelly look like a victim of the big bad NRA.

    1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      Absolutely-just waiting to see how soon the puppies follow that biscuit……

  13. avatar sindaan68 says:

    Cause F a hypocrite…

  14. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

    Although I generally agree that it is too easy to buy assault weapons, the store owner is correct to cancel the sale. You don’t buy guns to make political statements.

    1. avatar Texicans says:

      I may not like the statement, but I have no problem with the exercising of the right. I’ll take issue with his politics and intentions, but not his rights. ‘Tis a slippery slope.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Indeed ’tis a right to purchase a gun, but ’tis also the right of a business to refuse service.

      2. avatar Matt in SD says:

        Too easy to buy ‘assault weapons’? What ‘assault weapons’?

        1. avatar DisThunder says:

          Maybe it assaulted somebody while it was waiting for pickup?

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      DEFINE “assault weapon”.

      1. avatar little pony says:

        Can’t define it, but ‘ll describe it: A phrase with un-agreed-upon definition which was purposely coined to be confusingly similar to the term “assault rifle.”

        The confusion has reached a point where even people who know the difference will sometimes mix the terms up.

  15. avatar Don says:

    That was one of those dangerous high power assault dogs. A killing machine with no legitimate purpose.

    1. avatar Larry2 says:

      Outstanding!

    2. avatar Lucubration says:

      These dogs of war don’t belong on our streets!

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        Apparently someone let them slip…

    3. Considering there are bans in effect all over the USA, the UK, AUS, and CAN this is really not funny.

  16. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Thanking both Matt and Frank for your input, my main point was not the actual quote but a play on words in the sense of having a too-clever scheme foiled by your own over-cleverness. aircooled TOM got it – Congratulations!

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Apparently your humor is too smart for me. But not smart enough to find the Reply button underneath the relevant comment. 😀

  17. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

    Watched the vicious video. Seal didn’t die later, it was dead then. Tow things disturbing:

    1. Mark shakes dog loose after he arrives, then leads it away and doesn’t even try to help seal
    2. Tool taking video, didn’t have the stones to help either when seal still had a chance. He let 3 young women attempt to free the seal from the jaws of an unknown dog that was violent. He just stood up on rocks safely and offered advice (drown the fuc&ink dog) way to go hero. A better end would have been if someone shot the dog.

    Oh ya…the leash wasn’t “broken” it was just fine when Mark led the dog away.

    1. avatar JAS says:

      Obviously that dog was bred to attack seal pups on sight – jeez. I blame the breeders not the dogs.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      ” A better end would have been if someone shot the dog.”

      He forgot his assault rifle.

      Better ending: seal pup’s MOMMA shows up.

  18. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    To Matt, It doesn’t seem to work. I put them there but they go to the bottom. Perhaps the site is undergoing some problem of this sort since I read someone else say the same thing. Any solutions?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      There have been other problems in the past with this site that have been completely cleared up by clearing cache and cookies and restarting the browser, but I don’t know if that will fix this problem. Might be worth a try; certainly won’t hurt anything.

  19. Thanks to Douglas MacKinlay for making us all look good.

  20. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Thanks for the advice Matt, but I do that regularly and doesn’t seem to make a difference – bye for now.

  21. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    His daughter’s dog’s attack on a baby seal…? Stranger than fiction, by a mile.

  22. avatar Steve says:

    I have a problem with the shop going full retard by donating the rifle to be used by the police to buy more equipment for their SWAT teams. Does anyone else see the irony that Kelly will have the rifle he wanted to buy raffled off so that SWAT teams that shoot the hell out of some dogs can buy more equipment to shoot more dogs???

    1. avatar Barbicane says:

      The stores name: Diamondback Police Supply. Their customer base (though not the majority of customers) is LEO. The way the store is handling this is good old fashioned capitalism: butter the side of the bread you market to first, throw a bone to the children second… win-win for a well run business. (Probably cynical, but I am not trying to be critical).

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Who woulda thunk a place named “Diamondback Police Supply” was LEO?

  23. avatar nick says:

    Wow. People shouldn’t be allowed to own that type of dog. Look how it assaulted that poor little sea lion. We should have a national registry of assault dogs, and make it much more difficult to buy them.

    1. “We should have a national registry of assault dogs,” – they do, it’s called Breed Specific Legislation and it’s just as retarded, emotion based and fact less as an “assault weapons ban”. It is essentially, an “assault dog” ban.

      1. avatar Buuurr says:

        It’s insane isn’t it? I had to go through reams of lists to find a dog that my area allowed me to have in my own house. Even the insurance around here won’t accept certain dogs. Had to check that too. In doing so I have me a nice obscure guard dog. Let’s see… you can’t own a Doberman but we can get you a good quote on a Norwegian Bear Dog that is sure to kill any small animal near it. How about a Armenian Gampr dog? Want a dog so big and protective of its home it can take on a pack of coyotes and win? To say the list is dumb is a massive understatement.

  24. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Perhaps gun dealers should start adding their own form to firearm sales. The form should have the buyer attest that they do not support gun control or any other infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Further, the purchase is not being made for the purpose of making political statements furthering gun control causes.

    It is time we gave anti’s a taste of what they are preaching for all of us, forced helplessness. Are there any security companies out there refusing to serve big-name gun control advocates?

  25. avatar SeanC says:

    It looked to me that the girls trying to rescue the seal did more damage than the dog. The girl pulling on the seals legs probably broke its neck in the process.

  26. avatar In Memphis says:

    Between this and the latest on Cuomo, me thinks the antis dreams are starting to backfire and fall apart. For now.

  27. avatar InBox485 says:

    Lot of straw purchase FUD. Buying a gun with the intention of giving it to another is only illegal if the other person could not legally acquire it themselves or the intent was to illegally transfer or otherwise circumvent the law. For example:

    – Buying a rifle for your 12 year old son = 100% legal.
    – Buying a rifle in a state with registration requirements with the intent to hand it to somebody who could buy one but doesn’t want the paper trail = illegal
    – Buying a rifle for your local crack dealer in exchange for the latest product = illegal

    1. avatar Redlyr says:

      The dealer has the right to refuse a sale on any grounds. Some would say they have the obligation to refuse a sale if they even suspect there is a chance of an illegal transfer.

      This was more of a political statement for sure but, it is their store and their firearm. I believe they did what was “right” in this situation.

      1. avatar InBox485 says:

        I didn’t say they didn’t have the right. I’m just pointing out that their reason is pure BS. Spouting BS like that on a national scale is irresponsible. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with buying a rifle with the intent of it being a charitable donation to a legitimate recipient. The shop should have canceled the sale, but they should have said they will have no part in a childish publicity stunt by a guy who appears to have wanted a pre-ban rifle before his sponsored legislation passed, but is now back peddling. That would have been honest and correct.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          He’s a spokesman, a flying sock puppet, not a “sponsor”; the latter has to be someone in Congress.

        2. avatar InBox485 says:

          What the fug are you talking about Burke? The douche is putting social and financial capitol behind an idea. That is sponsorship. Not the same as sponsoring by a legislator, but it doesn’t cease to be sponsorship. Where the hell do get these ideas from?

    2. avatar Buuurr says:

      “InBox485 says:

      March 27, 2013 at 18:55

      My response was to William Burke 😉 . He implied that owning a pit meant something was wrong with you, and I said that he is an ignorant bigot if he actually thinks that.”

      My bad, Bro.

  28. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

    I guess its not that easy to buy a rifle after all.

  29. avatar Rick A says:

    So he wanted to prove that anyone that can legally own a gun can easily purchase a gun. So what. As my kid says, “LAME.”

  30. avatar Lance says:

    Give that Store owner a Cigar! Give Mark Kelly a raspberry!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Kelly needs a WET WILLIE, not a raspberry.

    2. avatar In Memphis says:

      I’ll give him that dead seal

  31. avatar Slappy says:

    California sea lions are a protected species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Officials not pursuing charges against Kelly’sdaughter is a big steaming pile of bullshit! If it were any of us, we’d be looking at a court date on a host of Federal charges!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Where’s sea lion pup’s MOMMA when you need her? She should dispatch the dog and then go straight for MARK KELLY.

  32. avatar Totenglocke says:

    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.

    Wait, WHAT?! So instead of selling it to an anti-gun guy who’ll either use it for personal use or give ONE rifle to the police, they want to auction it to help fund more state-sponsored terrorism against Americans? They’d do far more good by donating the money to the SAF or GOA.

  33. avatar Dennis says:

    +5 surprised nobody got that. LOL

  34. avatar Will says:

    While his purchase was very hypocritical in nature. It could very well be he was covering his purchase to those who convinced him that the very same gun should be banned.

    A theory: His wife was nearly killed. I’m sure he was in a very mentally unstable place, and IF he wasn’t anti-gun previously, those that were filled his head with fear and lies about gun ownership, specifically “assault weapons.” He may have come to his senses some, and feeling that he was the husband of one of the ruling class, he was entitled to it. When it was published that he was buying it, to appease his new friends, he lied about the reason he was buying it.

    Cover-up on why, or purchasing for his stated reasons, doesn’t really matter. I don’t think I could in good faith and conscience sell him a gun either after those statements. They should carefully consider who they want to donate the AR and other funds to as well, as not all those organizations are exactly civilian gun ownership friendly in their leadership.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      The thing is, he and Gabby owned and shot Glocks etc. before and after her accident. They are just typical hypocrites that think they and other elitists should be allowed to own what the want but not anyone that disagrees with them. It also appears that Markie has drivers licenses in multiple states or he would have had to have the FFL where he bought the .45 pistol send it to a ffl in Texas.

  35. avatar Doug says:

    No one “needs” a pit bull. They are dangerous and likely to injure someone living in the same house. They are sometimes responsible for deaths of children. They were originally bred as fighting dogs and have no place in legitimate outdoor sportsman activities.

    We need common sense legislation now that bans assault weap-, err…. pit bulls. As this video shows, a pit bull can just “go off” accidentally and cause death. Also, the video proves that kids and women should not be allowed to handle pit bulls. Their high capacity magazines, I mean mouths, are not needed for legitimate self defense. To defends one’s house, all that is needed is a chihuahua or similarly-sized dog to wake up the owners so they can go hide defenseless in a closet and hope the intruders are unarmed. And pee on themselves if they are worried about being raped.

  36. avatar Paul says:

    Giffords attempted gun purchase. I would like to know if he was going to donate the gun to the police department, if he was going to fill out the proper gun transfer papers, that the law requires. Good job Douglas.

  37. avatar Buuurr says:

    @@@“Laura Prowicz @@@@“Laura Prowicz @@@ LOL

    “Laura Prowicz says:
    March 27, 2013 at 18:29
    I can say all the same things about irresponsible gun owners, gang bangers and other kinds of a@@holes who own guns … and I can take every reference to “pit bull” in your paragraph there and replace it with “assault weapon” and it doesn’t lose a whit of its meaning. “

    Sure doesn’t.

    “No one can tell me that here is the smallest difference between banning “pit bulls” and banning “assault weapons” and if you insist there is I’ll call you a liar and a willful ignorant with an uninformed opinion. 🙂 “

    You sure can.

    “My point is: There is a difference between saying “people have a right to their private property and the Government should not have the right to pass judgement on whether they are responsible enough to own it or not” (and living with the irresponsible that are bound to emerge as a result) and having the Government pass laws against ownership so that the community can be “safe”. “

    Well I agree with you within reason. But, by and large in my community Pits and their owners are more trouble than they are worth. I mean there has to be something to it when entire states and regions have private dog training facilities but refuse pit breeds? Am I right? I mean those people that run those places and train at those places love every dog that comes in (and all kinds come in where I live) and they are professionals too. They don’t allow pits. It isn’t because there is a ban in my area, but around it. They can legally and for insurance purposes have pits attend classes and events but they CHOOSE to NOT have them. That says all it needs to say for me. They are not a government run group. They are a group of luring, SAR, and yes, even attack dog training folk. What do you have to say about that? Are all those people who devoted their lives and careers to being professional dog handlers of ill opinion? Are they all just paranoid too? BTW… I haven’t figured out where you think I am for or against a dog ban yet… let me know when we find that will you?

    “Gun owners by the large are in the camp of “assume I am responsible and allow me to manage myself” and not in the camp of “assume everyone is irresponsible and ban it for everyone’s safety”. But when you straddle the line and want everyone to assume you are responsible so that you can keep your guns but assume that dog owners are irresponsible simply because of the type of dog they own: that is Hypocrisy and it is a totally inconsistent position to take on the two topics. Especially since everything that is said about “assault weapons” that is false, a dramatization, and hysteria-induced is just so with “pit bulls”. “

    I would like you to re-read my post. You seem to have a comprehension problem as well. And the fact that you are comparing an object that without user control can do nothing but be a paper weight (gun) to a living, breathing, thinking animal that does have tendencies to be…. a dog. Yeah… no link there. If you had been comparing hi-cap magazines to hi-cap, rapid fire staplers we would have a discussion. Mostly because [INANIMATE OBJECTS] both cannot cause harm WITHOUT a users input and control. To make it crystal clear to you: If you put a shovel and a rake in the backyard for eight hours in a completely secure environment would you expect anything bad to have happened in that time? Now, let’s go here: If you put a two-six year old child in that same secure, safe backyard with a pit (or any dog – even a Chihuahua) for eight hours. Would you expect anything bad to have happened in that time? Am I being Clear enough for you?

    “Notice I am not even paying attention to how you assume in your little dissertation that most pit bull owners are irresponsible and/or crack dealers … lumping me into a category because I own a certain type of dog … did you see me lump you in with deranged lunatics because you own a certain type of weapon? See the parallels yet? Trust me, they are ALL there. I am sure you are completely unaware of how what you project onto me all that is wrong with the hysteria about pit bulls with what you wrote. Should I forgive you? Would you forgive me if I projected all that is wrong with the hysteria about AR-15s onto you with what I wrote?”

    Meh… I said take it as you would. In my area they generally are. My area is a city. It is a known fact that drug dealers have large, aggressive dogs guarding their houses against (not police or DEA) but rather junkies or someone who would try and take a stash. Like the other poster said. It just makes good sense if you are in that trade. I didn’t lump you into that category – you did. I am referring to the folk in my area and what I have seen them do. If you think you telling me that pit owners are fine and that I am a bigot to assume that just because I saw DEA agents haul a pit and then the dealer out of a house five houses down from me is not how all pit owners are, fine. I could care less. It is great that you live in an area that pit owners are nice. I don’t. Get over it.

    You keep using the word hysteria. Have you read the thread? You know I have owned/own large dogs, right? One of them a pit terrier… no? Just jumped the gun? His name was Cain… he was a black and grey brindle. He was a great dog. But he did, for no reason we could discern, tear up the interior of a running vehicle while being walked one day. I will assume that the rest of what you wrote is just projection and not bother to reply because it gets fairly nutty.

    “I know how to handle my dogs and I am a responsible dog owner. I also happen to be a responsible gun owner. “

    Awesome. Me too. Nice to meet you.

    “It is no one’s business but mine what I own and what I do with my stuff.”

    Actually it is. Once you start trying to walk four or five pits down a busy street it suddenly becomes everyone’s business.

    “Until and unless my keeping of my private property infringes on your life in some way it’s just none of your business.”

    Wow… clarity. So you get where I am coming from… you just can’t see it because you think I am against pits and want dog bans… because you couldn’t slow down and read…

    “Bottom line. I work to Keep it That Way and that is all you need to know.”

    Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate it.

    “I also accept no accountability for anyone else and their level of responsibility or lack thereof – whether we’re talking about guns or dogs so I’ll appreciate no one lumping me into any particular category of person just because of what type of dog or what type of weapon I choose for my family.”

    Me either. But we can talk about them, right? Or can we not? No? Everyone has to be honky dory with everything you believe in even though they have issues with folk in their community with those types of dogs? What was it you said about neighbor and my house and when I infringe on your rights and all that?

    “ I have nothing in common with irresponsible gun owners or dog owners and I will not shoulder any of their shame. I certainly won’t allow anyone to punish me for their bad behavior. “

    I wouldn’t say you should. Who asked you too? And why should you be?

    “… and p.s. IMO: Anyone on this blog who subscribes to dog bans and lumps people into a category based on what type of dog they own is no better than a yellow-bellied, lying, cowardly, emotional, gray-matter-challenged hypocritical gun grabber.”

    haha… you need to learn to read. You are so mad and have no idea of my stance on the issue. I am against the bans… I even replied to you telling you how silly they were and what we had to go through to get a good guard dog in our area. THIS is because the pits are banned by areas around me and so the insurance agencies ban them in my city too. THIS is because they have found a big link between drug dealers and pit bulls in my city. What about any of this tells you I support a ban on pit bulls? What makes you think I could do anything about it if I didn’t?

    READ THE POST BELOW… it was posted hours before you posted this (unless there is an issue with the server and this is a big understanding)… if there isn’t, and you really think I feel the way you think I do, I think you need to soak your head.

    Laura Prowicz says:
    March 26, 2013 at 22:19
    “We should have a national registry of assault dogs,” – they do, it’s called Breed Specific Legislation and it’s just as retarded, emotion based and fact less as an “assault weapons ban”. It is essentially, an “assault dog” ban.

    Reply
    avatar Buuurr says:
    March 27, 2013 at 16:18
    It’s insane isn’t it? I had to go through reams of lists to find a dog that my area allowed me to have in my own house. Even the insurance around here won’t accept certain dogs. Had to check that too. In doing so I have me a nice obscure guard dog. Let’s see… you can’t own a Doberman but we can get you a good quote on a Norwegian Bear Dog that is sure to kill any small animal near it. How about a Armenian Gampr dog? Want a dog so big and protective of its home it can take on a pack of coyotes and win? To say the list is dumb is a massive understatement.

    lol… Interwebs people.. so quick to anger.

    That is all.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email