Gun store makes the smart decision - denied Mark Kelly

I don't see how Kelly was going to break the law with it and the seller's definition of "personal use" seemed rather spurious. Even if Kelly was going to use the gun as a political prop for his own gun control rhetoric that still qualifies as personal use and doesn't violate the law.

It is the seller's right to sell who he wants to but I don't see an issue of the law here.

 

It all falls into the area of straw purchases. Question 12a on the Firearms Transaction Record states:

Are you the actual 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 Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)

If you read just that part, it seems he was violating federal law by answering yes on that question. But if you go down to Important Notice 1, it states:

IMPORTANT NOTICES
1.
For purposes of this form, you are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself
(for example,redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment). You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party.
ACTUAL BUYER EXAMPLES:
Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith
gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT the actual buyer of the firearm and must answer “no “ to question 12a. The
licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to question 12a

So since it seems this was just a "gift" from Kelly to a third party, he did not violate the law. Hypocrite perhaps, but felon, no.

 

Isn't the personal use thing to keep people from selling the guns to others? It's not for a loophole if your purpose for the gun doesn't suit the seller's idea of personal use. eh?

So they use that to keep him from buying a gun he should otherwise have been able to buy to 'thwart' his plan of showing how easy it is to get, and to show that because of this, it shows their discretion.

I don't have a dog in this race, really, but it seems a little disingenuous and misleading to me.

 

I don't see from the original article that Kelly was going to even give it away.

From the article:
[rquoter]Kelly had spoken of his intention to buy a rifle to demonstrate how easy it is to buy high-powered weapons, CNN reported, adding that the AR-15 is one of America's top-selling firearms.[/rquoter]

Based on what you cited I don't see where Kelly is even remotely close to breaking the law.

 

If you google, several other stories will indicate that Kelly was planning to raffle it. It isn't in this story, but in in many others.

Trust me,as a former FFL, what Kelly was doing was technically illegal, and if I were in the same position, even if Kelly wasn't in a very public anti-gun position, I would think long and hard about giving him the gun, and I know many who would just shut it down without even thinking.

 

I didn't see other articles that he was going to raffle it. That said if Kelly raffling it off then what about this raffle where an AR-15 was raffled off for a little league team?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/little-league-gun-raffle-ar-15-133837381.html

 

[rquoter]
The Atwood-Hammond group partnered with the local armory for the raffle, which launched on Tuesday.

The winner of the rifle—a Rock River Arms Tactical Operator AR-15—will have to go through a standard background check, Butcher added.

[/rquoter]

Hopefully, the difference is obvious.

 

Someone needs to make this their signature.

 

So if Kelly requires whoever wins the rifle to go through a background check wouldn't that solve the problem?

Anyway doesn't the current law still allow private sellers to sell there guns?

 

Come on man he's picking who he want to sell too.

 

That's BS. The store owner is just looking to avoid the publicity. Once the other gun nuts find out he sold an assault rifle to Kelly to use to campaign for gun control his business is going to get hammered by gun nuts. It's just a smart move for him. Now the gun nuts are applauding him and his business is safe.

 

No, a straw purchase is a straw purchase is a straw purchase.

All the raffles I have seen, including the one with the thread in D&D are run by gun shops. There is no purchase of a firearm with intent to give it away by a third party. Ottomaton was a FFL holder, accept an experts opinion on a subject you know nothing about.

 

Absolutely. If he had gone to him beforehand, it would be legal... which doesn't mean the store would do it - it would in practical terms qualify as a store going 'above and beyond' for a customer, and many just don't do anything at all 'cute' when it comes to their background checks. Add in the fact that Kelly was probably not the owner's favorite person in the world...

But at the point that he lies on form 4473, Kelly is technicaly in violation of the law, and according to the letter of the rules, the store should loose its license for giving him the gun. It probably wouldn't happen.because the ATF wouldn't choose to prosicute an astronaut, and would have trouble proving the store knew about a raffle, but nevertheless.

Yes. Which has absolutely nothing to do with purchasing a gun with the express intent of giving it to someone else. The difference is intent.
Preventing straw purchases is easily the number 1 thing that the ATF talks to FFL's about - its pretty much the only thing they have a campaign for. I don't think I ever recieved any other communications from them.

Seriously, the last thing you want is a world in which a gun store feels like he has to 'make a case' for not selling a gun. They pretty much teach that at the moment it doesn't feel right, the ATF teaches that the FFL should just shut it down.

I would far prefer that to a world where the FFL gives a gun to someone in spite of feeling uneasy. I think in basically any other example ever, most of the people upset here would be upset that the seller gave a gun to a buyer when they felt uneasy or concerned.

 

And.yes, BTW, there were multiple times I rejected people when it became clear they were buying guns for someone else, and (to get more personal than I'd prefer to reveal) I was 'told' by an agent at an extremely loud volume that I wasn't properly paranoid in rejecting someone else that passed the background checks. And that particular instance involved a transfer to a police officer employed by an institution of higher learning.

 

All demorats should be denied gun ownership :grin:

 

Problem Solved

 

Another poster noted that you can buy a gun while answering "yes" on the form if you are planning on gifting it and Kelly could resell it if he wanted to. This all seems a matter of interpretation and there is enough loopholes in the law I can still see how Kelly wasn't breaking the law.

As I said before whether Kelly was breaking the law or not I don't begrudge the seller from not selling the weapon. That is his right, but this situation to me does illustrate the problem with the law as currently is. While yes straw purchasers are a big issue but it does appear to be relatively easy to get around it.