M2RB: Nirvana
And I swear that Mark don't have a gun
No, Mark don't have a gun
No, Mark don't have a gun
Markoria
Markoria - and Mark don't have a gun And I swear that MarkI don't have a gun
No, Mark I don't have a gun
Markoria - and Mark don't have a gun And I swear that MarkI don't have a gun
No, Mark I don't have a gun
From Fox News:
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, 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.
Kelly's March 5 purchase of an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber
handgun at Diamondback Police Supply sparked a frenzy of reaction from
both sides of the debate after he posted to Facebook a photo of himself
shopping.
A background check took only a matter of minutes to complete, Kelly said in the Facebook post, adding that it's scary to think people can buy similar guns without background checks at gun shows or on the Internet.
But Kelly couldn't immediately take possession of the rifle because
the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is
required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the
city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime.
Store owner Doug MacKinlay said Monday in a Facebook post of his own that he "determined that was in my company's best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store."
"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," MacKinlay said in the statement.
He added that the store will return Kelly's money, donate the rifle
to the Arizona Tactical Officers Association to be raffled as a
fundraiser and make an additional contribution of $1,295 -- the value of
the rifle -- to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.
Kelly's purchase of the guns sparked accusations of hypocrisy from
gun-rights supporters, with many on Facebook focusing on his motivations
and the rules for purchasing such guns. Kelly, a former astronaut, said
he intended to eventually hand in the rifle to Tucson police but
planned to keep the handgun.
Kelly and Giffords started a gun control advocacy group, Americans
for Responsible Solutions, amid the wave of recent mass shootings. They
have been touring the country in recent months in support of expanded
background checks for gun purchases.
Kelly bought the guns at a Tucson shop the day before he appeared
with his wife at the supermarket where she was wounded during a shooting
rampage that left six dead and 12 others injured two years ago.
Giffords resigned from Congress last year as she continues to recover
from her injuries.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
From my previous post:
Captain Mark Kelly: Felon?
Mark
Kelly, the husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was
gravely wounded by a madman with a 9 mm in January, 2011, recently
purchased a Sig Sauer 45 pistol at a gun store in Arizona. As he was
leaving, he claims, he spotted a secondhand Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm
AR-style rifle on sale, which he also decided to purchase. Because the
latter weapon was secondhand, it was placed on a 20-day hold per a local
gun law. During this time, Breitbart received a tip about the
purchase. Why would someone tip off a news organisation about a
law-abiding citizen purchasing a legal weapon? Because this particular
law-abiding citizen had only recently testified before Congress,
alongside his wife, that "no one needs an AR-style weapon."
Now,
hypocrisy isn't a crime and I didn't want to make a Federal case about
it, but Mr Kelly wasn't about to let a chink be put in his
holier-than-thou armour. No. Sirree. Bob.
So,
Captain Kelly, who piloted and commanded the final mission of the space
shuttle, Endeavour, set out to prove his nobility and honour while
putting we rubes in our trailer park places. You see, luv, he might
have purchased the AR-style weapon,
but he only wanted to show how easy it was for a lunatic or
hopping-mad-handle flyer to get one. Because, like, um, ya know, all
lunatics have been entrusted with space shuttles and all heat-of-passion shooters get 20 days to cool off so, like, Captain Kelly perfectly replicated the millions of firearm transactions every year.
They don't call the First Rule of Holes the first for nothing. When you're in a hole, it's probably best to stop digging.
Oh,
but our intrepid space cowboy has defied gravity so, of course, he
probably thought that the Rules of Holes do not apply to him.
He probably should ask a lawyer if said counsel believes that there is some reason why the law would not apply to him, too,
before he further tempts the hole karma because on those forms that
Captain Kelly is seen filling out above in the photograph on the right
are the following:
ATF Form 4473 — Question 11:
Answer questions 11 a. (see exceptions) through 11.I and 12 (if applicable) by checking or marking “yes” or “no” in the boxes to the right of the questions.
a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are aquiring 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.
Let the record show that Captain Kelly answered in the affirmative.
ATF Form 4473 — Declaration:
“I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b through 11.k is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.I is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violated State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal license is a violation of law (See Instructions for Question 16).”
Let the record reflect that Captain Kelly affixed his signature.
Now, granted, Kelly was the purchaser and had not agreed to buy the gun for another person or an organisation beforehand.
BUT, to be a straw purchaser, there does not need to be a prior agreement between the buyer and the eventual recipient.
If
Kelly was purchasing the gun with the intent to donate it, was he
buying it on behalf of another - a fact that must be disclosed? He was
certainly not buying it for himself…if he intended, as he claims, to
donate it.
If he told the gun dealer that the gun was for himself rather than intended for the police or a charity organisation, wouldn’t this be a false statement or, in the very least, an incomplete statement? I would argue that it would.
If you purchase a firearm as a gift, you must disclose this fact and the name of the intended recipient. It would not make sense to require a buyer, who intends to gift a gun, to disclose the recipient's name, but allow a buyer, who intends to donate a similar gun, conceal the donation and donee's name. What is the difference between a gift and a charitable donation to a police or other gun control organisation in the case of a used AR-15 other than tax treatment?
If he told the gun dealer that the gun was for himself rather than intended for the police or a charity organisation, wouldn’t this be a false statement or, in the very least, an incomplete statement? I would argue that it would.
If you purchase a firearm as a gift, you must disclose this fact and the name of the intended recipient. It would not make sense to require a buyer, who intends to gift a gun, to disclose the recipient's name, but allow a buyer, who intends to donate a similar gun, conceal the donation and donee's name. What is the difference between a gift and a charitable donation to a police or other gun control organisation in the case of a used AR-15 other than tax treatment?
Gabby Giffords with an AR-15 in 2010
Come as you are, as you were,
As I want you to be
As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy.
Take your time, hurry up
The choice is yours, don't be late.
Take a rest, as a friend, as an old memoria
Memoria [x3]
Come dowsed in mud, soaked in bleach
As I want you to be
As a trend, as a friend, as an old memoria
Memoria [x3]
And I swear that I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun [x2]
Memoria [x3]
Memoria - and I don't have a gun
And I swear that I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun [x4]
Memoria [x2]
As I want you to be
As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy.
Take your time, hurry up
The choice is yours, don't be late.
Take a rest, as a friend, as an old memoria
Memoria [x3]
Come dowsed in mud, soaked in bleach
As I want you to be
As a trend, as a friend, as an old memoria
Memoria [x3]
And I swear that I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun [x2]
Memoria [x3]
Memoria - and I don't have a gun
And I swear that I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun [x4]
Memoria [x2]
1 comment:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/markkelly.asp
Post a Comment