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.In comments, I replied:
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.Which leads me to ponder; if I were to hang a gun shaped dog turd on a hook and call it jewelry, would all of the gun bloggers line up to misrepresent the facts while helping me advertise the sale? How is that example materially different from what so many seem anxious to do for this tosser?
C'mon people; thimk.
4 comments:
Unless it is stated on the Form4473 that a person is buying the firearm as a gift; it is illegal to purchase with the intent to give away.
I've avoided talking about this issue because a.) I think that having the NICS check is unconstitutional and b.) the questions asked on it are designed to help a prohibited person get a firearm.
I find his actions, regardless of motivation, to be hypocritical.
If I take him seriously, how is the fact that a law abiding, veteran and current NASA employee being able to easily purchase a firearm a problem?
I know the level of scrutiny I had just to get a Secret level security clearance; I can only imagine what an Astronaut goes through.
If he was buying it for protection (good for him) while calling for a restriction of our rights...then that defines hypocrite.
I think the 'crime' issue is a reflection of the society we've become. Nothing can simply be 'wrong' any longer; it has to be illegal in some way.
And I think that is the saddest aspect of it all.
Hi Bob,
I've cleared the TS background scrutiny twice myself so we have that in common also.
What strikes me as disturbing is the willingness so many display to promote this guys efforts to demonize ... well, us. You're not the first person to speculate that the wording of Form 4473 is misleading; I tend to think it more an example of bureaucrateze by committee - of lawyers at that. In any case, on the back of the form, under "Instructions for Buyers", it clearly states that buying a gun as a gift is not a violation (or words to that effect) so not a "Yes" answer to question 11a.
Making the point that his video supports the effectiveness of existing background check requirements is certainly good (however undesirable the check might personally be regarded), but making the false claim he acted criminally doesn't help.
Dur, Dur, Dur ...
That should read; "... so not a "No" answer to question 11a." above. Quoting from the instructions on an example Form 4473, "You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party." Which makes whats-his-name the actual buyer each time, so where is the crime?
This is what I get for posting a hasty answer when I should be leaving for work.
Here is the web addy for the DoJ/BATFE sample page for Form 4473:
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
The instructions regarding question 11.a are on the 4th page of the pdf file.
Unless someone can document that Kelly was using someone else's money to make a deliberate straw purchase, no crime was committed as far as I can tell.
Post a Comment