Mark Kelly FFL refuses to complete transaction..Legal?

[racerx2oo3]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...iref=allsearch

So I've been arguing with a couple of people who are stating that since the gun store took Kelly's money, that they have acted in an illegal manner by terminating the transaction. Their thought process is that by filling out the paperwork and paying, the AR-15 was Kelly's and they had no right to deny the purchase. My thought it that since Kelly never took final possession of the AR-15 the store was within their rights.

Thought I'd ask some more knowledgeable.

[kemasa]

Kelly stated in the media that he was not the actual transferee as he said that he intended to give it to the police, which makes it a straw purchase and the FFL has no choice but to stop the transfer.

The firearm is not the customer's until the forms are signed. It does not matter that he paid. There are those who claim that once a person pays, they own the firearm, but there are numerous serious issues with such an argument.

It isn't over until the FFL signs the 4473 and up until then, the FFL can stop the transfer.

[c good]

As noted above. When picking up the firearm, buyer must "re-certify" the 4473 and all of his original information with a signature and date. Until this re-certification is done, dealer has the right to recind transaction for any reason they want.

[Yugo]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Kelly stated in the media that he was not the actual transferee as he said that he intended to give it to the police, which makes it a straw purchase and the FFL has no choice but to stop the transfer.

The firearm is not the customer's until the forms are signed. It does not matter that he paid. There are those who claim that once a person pays, they own the firearm, but there are numerous serious issues with such an argument.

It isn't over until the FFL signs the 4473 and up until then, the FFL can stop the transfer.

/THREAD

[Bobby Ricigliano]

It is OK for Mark Kelly and the rest of the politburo to have AR-15's.

The rest of you can eat cake.

[JustEd]

Originally Posted by racerx2oo3

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...iref=allsearch

So I've been arguing with a couple of people who are stating that since the gun store took Kelly's money, that they have acted in an illegal manner by terminating the transaction. Their thought process is that by filling out the paperwork and paying, the AR-15 was Kelly's and they had no right to deny the purchase. My thought it that since Kelly never took final possession of the AR-15 the store was within their rights.

Thought I'd ask some more knowledgeable.

I think they were legally required to void the sale as he publicly stated that he was in effect making a straw purchase. He had only paid for the weapon and it was not yet delivered (back ordered).

Gun grabbers are looking at States like AZ and saying they have "laxed gun laws." If I were a dealer there it would not be in the interest of my business to allow anything which appears to be a straw purchase. Not to mention that the ATF could have drug them over the proverbial coals for not refusing this sale since, again, \ it was public knowledge he did not intend the weapon for himself.

You know he already purchased and received a handgun where he must have sworn that he was not purchasing it for someone else. Wonder how that will turn out now that everyone knows he lied about that?

[audiophil2]

You guys are all wrong.
Kelly would have had no problem buying the gun and then donating it to the police. He is not a straw purchaser because he is not buying it for someone in order to circumvent law.

The is no "re-certifying" in AZ. He had to return for the AR15 only because it was a used/consignment gun and was within the 20 day window FFLs have to hold guns to make sure they are not stolen. If it was a brand new AR15 or even a used on past the 20 day pawn hold he could have taken possession (like he did with the pistol) immediately and drive it right off to the Popo.

Since the gun was on a pawn hold Kelly most likely did not do a 4473 on the AR. Even if he did complete one and go through a NICS or even simpler handed over a CCW the FFL could cancel the transaction for any number of reasons. Kelly could fight it but from a political standpoint that would show how HARD it is to get a gun rendering his whole plan a joke.

Purchasing a gun for someone else is allowed under certain circumstances such as gifts and donations. How do you think the NRA does raffles? I've done it plenty of times in AZ and CA.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by audiophil2

You guys are all wrong.
Kelly would have had no problem buying the gun and then donating it to the police. He is not a straw purchaser because he is not buying it for someone in order to circumvent law.
...
Purchasing a gun for someone else is allowed under certain circumstances such as gifts and donations. How do you think the NRA does raffles? I've done it plenty of times in AZ and CA.

Yes, but I doubt that it would be considered a gift to turn it into the police, so that exemption would not apply.

Do you realize that if you happened across a firearm that you knew a friend wanted really badly and you called your friend to ask if they wanted it, then you bought it, it would be illegal? It does not matter if you did the paperwork later to transfer it. These issues are not as reasonable and rational as you would like, it is the law after all.

If you buy a firearm for someone else, even if they are not a prohibited person, it is still illegal unless it is a gift.

The NRA does not fill out a 4473, so there is no response for 11a, so that is a very different issue.

[audiophil2]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Yes, but I doubt that it would be considered a gift to turn it into the police, so that exemption would not apply.

Do you realize that if you happened across a firearm that you knew a friend wanted really badly and you called your friend to ask if they wanted it, then you bought it, it would be illegal? It does not matter if you did the paperwork later to transfer it. These issues are not as reasonable and rational as you would like, it is the law after all.

If you buy a firearm for someone else, even if they are not a prohibited person, it is still illegal unless it is a gift.

The NRA does not fill out a 4473, so there is no response for 11a, so that is a very different issue.

Kelly would be making a donation or disposing of a firearm. Both legal. Gifts are allowed for certain circumstances as I ready stated. Your friend example is not one and was never implied or stated as one so it's not relevant.

[SoulStealer]

IMHO the gun store owner can do what he wants!

Gun store owner Doug MacKinlay has now released this statement:
While I support and respect Mark Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible way, his recent statements to the media make it clear that his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer 5.56mm rifle was for reasons other than his own personal use.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I think kemasa is getting a little too strict with the straw purchase interpretation. Let's look at it again.

11.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 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.

Was Mark Kelly buying the firearm for himself? Yes. He was the actual transferee/buyer. That he planned on giving it to the police afterwards does not play into this. He was the actual transferee/buyer. Was he buying it on behalf of the Tuscon PD? No. They had no clue he planned on giving it to them so how could he be buying it on their behalf? Hell he probably didn't plan on giving it to the Tuscon PD until he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

You see a gun your buddy wants. You are going to buy it with your own money and sell it to him later. You are the actual transferee/buyer. Now the government can argue you were buying it on behalf of another person, but all you say is the firearm was for you. If financial records show you bought it with your money and then sold it to your friend, received payment for it, and lawfully transferred it, the government is going to have a hard case proving you bought it on your buddy's behalf when all evidence shows you did not.

If you admit you bought it for your buddy and financial records indicate it was his money you bought it with, then you might be screwed.

Let's not make a straw purchase into something it is not. You have to be buying the firearm on behalf of someone else and it must be proven in a court of law. If you never say it is for someone else and there are no financial records showing otherwise, then there is no case and it is not a straw purchase.

What you intend on doing with the firearm later on has no bearing. It only matters at the snap shot in time you sign the 4473. Many, many people buy firearms as investments, with the intent to resell. Are they the actual transferee/buyer at the time of signing the 4473? Yes. Do they intend to sell it later? Yes. They are still the transferee/buyer at the time of signature.

You buy a firearm so you can donate it. Are you the actual transferee/buyer at the time of signature? Yes. Does it matter you are going to lawfully give the firearm away afterwards? No. Not a straw purchase as you are not buying it on behalf of someone else. You are buying it for yourself in order to give it away.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I think kemasa is getting a little too strict with the straw purchase interpretation. Let's look at it again.

I think you are being too lack and I also think that you are wrong in some cases. While I don't disagree with some of the views, the problem is that the BATF has a view and that is what tends to count.

Was Mark Kelly buying the firearm for himself? Yes. He was the actual transferee/buyer. That he planned on giving it to the police afterwards does not play into this. He was the actual transferee/buyer. Was he buying it on behalf of the Tuscon PD? No. They had no clue he planned on giving it to them so how could he be buying it on their behalf? Hell he probably didn't plan on giving it to the Tuscon PD until he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Incorrect, you don't know what the actual answer is. Based on what I heard, his statements conflicts with your claims.

I agree with your guess that he got caught.

You see a gun your buddy wants. You are going to buy it with your own money and sell it to him later. You are the actual transferee/buyer. Now the government can argue you were buying it on behalf of another person, but all you say is the firearm was for you. If financial records show you bought it with your money and then sold it to your friend, received payment for it, and lawfully transferred it, the government is going to have a hard case proving you bought it on your buddy's behalf when all evidence shows you did not.

Incorrect. The fact that the firearm is quickly transferred shows what the intend was. Personally, I don't think it should ever be able to be considered a straw purchase if the other transfer is done through a FFL, but as shown by what is happening in Sacramento to the LEOs who transferred firearms due to their exemption shows otherwise.

If you don't ask your buddy, then it is a different story. Yes, it is unlikely that you would get caught and it is unlikely that you would be charged, but it is not the case that it is only illegal if you get caught, although that is how some like to view things. It would mean that murder is not illegal if you don't get caught.

If you admit you bought it for your buddy and financial records indicate it was his money you bought it with, then you might be screwed.

If he paid you right afterwards, then you could also have a problem. The question is whether you want to take such a risk or not.

Let's not make a straw purchase into something it is not. You have to be buying the firearm on behalf of someone else and it must be proven in a court of law. If you never say it is for someone else and there are no financial records showing otherwise, then there is no case and it is not a straw purchase.

Unless the firearm is transferred. I would also suggest that you not suggest to people to do things which could be viewed as a straw purchase. Even if you win in the end, you lose since the lawyers want to be paid.

What you intend on doing with the firearm later on has no bearing. It only matters at the snap shot in time you sign the 4473. Many, many people buy firearms as investments, with the intent to resell. Are they the actual transferee/buyer at the time of signing the 4473? Yes. Do they intend to sell it later? Yes. They are still the transferee/buyer at the time of signature.

Actually, it does. You view is not the view of those that enforce the laws. Are you willing to pay the legal bills of people who do what you suggest?

You buy a firearm so you can donate it. Are you the actual transferee/buyer at the time of signature? Yes. Does it matter you are going to lawfully give the firearm away afterwards? No. Not a straw purchase as you are not buying it on behalf of someone else. You are buying it for yourself in order to give it away.

A gift is covered. This was not a gift.

[troysland]

Dude, Kemasa, Wes is an FFL Dealer. I'm quite certain his knowledge on the matter is a bit more extensive than yours.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by troysland

Dude, Kemasa, Wes is an FFL Dealer. I'm quite certain his knowledge on the matter is a bit more extensive than yours.

Really? So you say that Wes is a FFL Dealer, so what? Does that show you can't read since you used that as an excuse? Do you think that a FFL can't be wrong? Hmmm, interesting since I have been an FFL for almost 20 years, so that presents a bit of a conflict for you, doesn't it?

You are certain that his knowledge is a bit more extensive than mine? Really? What do you know about me? Oh, is that just a stock stupid answer in order to try to defend your baseless statements? Since you seem to want to use the fact that Wes is a FFL as a reason he is right, but you seem to have missed that I am also a FFL, that shows that you don't seem to have a clue as to what you are talking about, doesn't it?

As for residency requirements, I defer to Wes as he really knows that, but for other things it can vary, sometimes greatly :-).

Quite funny.

[mcisniper]

[troysland]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Really? So you say that Wes is a FFL Dealer, so what? Does that show you can't read since you used that as an excuse? Do you think that a FFL can't be wrong? Hmmm, interesting since I have been an FFL for almost 20 years, so that presents a bit of a conflict for you, doesn't it?

You are certain that his knowledge is a bit more extensive than mine? Really? What do you know about me? Oh, is that just a stock stupid answer in order to try to defend your baseless statements? Since you seem to want to use the fact that Wes is a FFL as a reason he is right, but you seem to have missed that I am also a FFL, that shows that you don't seem to have a clue as to what you are talking about, doesn't it?

As for residency requirements, I defer to Wes as he really knows that, but for other things it can vary, sometimes greatly :-).

Quite funny.

Panties in a bunch much?

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by troysland

Panties in a bunch much?

Funny. You post a very stupid post which shows that you can't read or are just not paying attention and that it is bogus as well, then you post this to show that you don't get it. Perhaps you might want to consider growing up and start thinking about things instead of just responding.

You got called on your stupid post, learn from it instead of proving even more about yourself. I know, you can't admit that you were wrong.

[Jimmy310]

Kemasa, what would you do if you were the Arizona FFL who sold Mark Kelly the AR15?

[knerona]

Originally Posted by racerx2oo3

So I've been arguing with a couple of people who are stating that since the gun store took Kelly's money, that they have acted in an illegal manner by terminating the transaction.

They did refund his money. I'm sure that many FFL's have cancelled transactions before and for other reasons.. like the sake of price gouging.

[islandviewent]

Originally Posted by troysland

Panties in a bunch much?

No Kemasa wakes up every morning hoping he gets the chance to pound on his keyboard debating someone over the internet....

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by Jimmy310

Kemasa, what would you do if you were the Arizona FFL who sold Mark Kelly the AR15?

The same thing. Once he said it was not actually for him, it gets cancelled. Perhaps Mr. Kelly liked that since then he is not out the money. I also agree that if had not gotten caught, most likely he would have kept it.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by islandviewent

No Kemasa wakes up every morning hoping he gets the chance to pound on his keyboard debating someone over the internet....

Well, it seems that you just like to show that you are an idiot (as well as a liar), don't you?

He does not like me because I tried to tell him nicely that he was being stupid by telling people that he charges $200 for a transfer. He really does not want to do transfers, but he thinks it is better to charge an absurd fee than to tell people he just does not do them due to too many problems. I have seen people say negative things about places which charged half of what he tells people, so I was trying to help them. Just another example of trying to teach a pig to sing.

I suspect his ego got in the way, perhaps because he used to be a football player or perhaps because it seems likely that he got the money for his business from his father (the Internet is a wonderful place).

[audiophil2]

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer:
For purposes of this form, you are
the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or
otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself
(e.g., redeeming the firearm from
pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner)
. You are also the
actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately
purchasing the f
irearm
as a gift
for a third party.
ACTUAL
TRANSFEREE/B
UYER
EXAMPLES:
Mr.
Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a f
irearm for Mr.
Smith. Mr.
Smith gives Mr.
Jones the money for the f
irearm. Mr.
Jones is
NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS-
FEREE/BUYER
of the firearm and must answer
“NO”
to question 11.a. 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
transferee/b
uyer of the firearm and should answer
“YES”
to question 11.a. However,
you may not transfer a firearm to any
person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18
U.S.C.
§
922(g), (n), or (x).
Please note: 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.

[kantstudien]

Wow, with the drama here Bravo TV should start "The real FFLs of So Cal."

The shop should have taken a 20% restocking fee if they did end up refunding Kelly for wasting everyone's time.

[geeknow]

Under these same circumstances, I would have cancelled the sale/transfer too.