Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Self-Hating Gun Owners

27 Comments

That vast constituency that is apparently the last hope of those who would disarm us.

[Update a few minutes later]

(Astronaut) Mark Kelly, federal gun criminal?

I believe he probably bought the AR for his own protection for the same reason I bought mine. He didn’t expect to be caught doing it. Now, it appears, he says his intentions were to give it to Tucson PD from the beginning. The local prosecutor needs to get involved. When Mr. Kelly completed ATF Form 4473, which he had to do to legally buy the weapon, he had to answer question 11.a, which says “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this from? 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.” If he had answered no to this question, which he now claims was his intent all along. He would have been denied. Additionally when he signed the form at the bottom of Section A, he did so bellow the following in bold face type. “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…etc.” It doesn’t matter, as he now claims, whether he intended to give the weapon to law enforcement or the Pope, straw purchases are illegal and by his own statement Mr. Kelly appears to have committed a felony.

This could end up being delicious, if the local federal attorney investigates. But of course, working for Eric Holder, he won’t.

FWIW, I don’t believe him. As the commenter says, he bought the gun because he wanted it, and thought no one would notice. He’s becoming a Sarah Brady, with more hypocrisy.

27 thoughts on “Self-Hating Gun Owners”

  1. That’s a pretty crazy tale. And once again, we have supposedly sophisticated journalists and editors failing to do rudimentary fact checking to see if the people they interview are on the level.

  2. Of course he was trying to hide it. Which is why he posted pictures of himself filling out the background check to his Facebook timeline, with the following comment:

    “Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week. I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.”

    This has been quite a week for the Breitbart gang. First James O’Keefe settles to pay $100K (and apologize) to the Acorn employee he slandered with his highly edited video. Then Steven Crowder’s prosecutor drops all charges against the “union thugs” who smacked his gob because, oh guess what, his unedited source video doesn’t support any of his charges. This “shocker” story of Kelley buying an AR-15 is certainly living up to the ‘journalistic standards’ of the Breitbart empire.

      1. Yeah, you know, when I’m trying to secretly buy something without getting caught, the first thing I do is have a friend photograph me, say, filling out the background check paperwork. He didn’t do that because he was intending to publish those pictures — that’s inconceivable.

        But the Breittards continue their awesome roll. Yesterday they published a story about Krugman filing for bankruptcy, only to find out later it was a hoax. So they sheepishly removed the story without comment.

    4. Dunno.

      Unless he acted as a “cutout” for the Tucson PD, i.e. got paid to go buy the AR-15, that is, unless he received some grant of immunity as a paid informant, maybe there is no problem.

      Say he bought the AR-15 for himself, thought, this is cool, but I changed my mind and don’t want it, I will hand it over to the PD (for free), no problem, right? But then he bought the gun with the idea of not keeping it, and bragged of same on Facebook, I guess Captain Kelly, USN, Ret. is in the same trouble as David Gregory, which, given how our law works these days, is not as much as you or I?

    5. ” First James O’Keefe settles to pay $100K (and apologize) to the Acorn employee he slandered with his highly edited video”

      Actually, slander was not part of the lawsuit. He was sued because he recorded someone without permission. Now, if he was a liberal using a hidden camera for the purpose of exposing corruption, you would call him a whistle blower. Where is your free bradley manning brigade?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/james-okeefe-juan-carlos-vera_n_2832338.html

      “In 2010, Vera filed a lawsuit against O’Keefe and Giles, alleging that they had breached his privacy by recording him without his consent. ”

      “Then Steven Crowder’s prosecutor drops all charges against the “union thugs” who smacked his gob because, oh guess what, his unedited source video doesn’t support any of his charges.”

      Even if the unionista was pushed to the ground while his compatriots were charging the tent to cut it down with knives, it would not mean that he was justified to start throwing punches when the people his group were attacking had retreated. You even listen to any of the things those union people were saying? It would take a lot of self restraint not to push one out of your face especially considering the threatening nature of their words, body posture, and mob mentality which lowers people inhibitions to carry out acts of violence.

      Think about that for a second. You have some 300lb guy inches away from your face yelling threats and obscenities at you and he has been following you around for hours doing this with several thousand of his friends. Who wouldn’t eventually push him out of your personal space? Why is it that Democrats think getting inches from your face shouting threats is acceptable behavior?

      These same uinionistas are burning down job sites and sabotaging equipment and vandalizing the homes of people they disagree with. When will our friends on the left stop the violence coming from their protest class?

      And why wont you show the same deference to Steven Crowder as you do Trayvon Martin?

  3. “Of course he was trying to hide it. Which is why he posted pictures of himself filling out the background check to his Facebook timeline, with the following comment:…”

    Yeah…2 days after he was contacted by McCabe, and therefore busted. And 3 days after the purchase. If this was his intention all along he would have posted it right away or, better yet, had media with him when he bought the Armalite Rifle-15. Being who he is, he could have gotten media to go along with him and post the film on the evening news with no trouble at all. But that’s not what he did, is it?

    Also, Kelly’s actions and statement makes no sense..if he was trying to underscore the (alleged) gun show loophole, how did he think making a legal spot purchase of an AR-15 was going to do that? They are unrelated. It’s like saying:

    “I’m going to show the world how easy it is for car thieves to steal cars, and then commit more crimes with the cars, by going to the dealer and legally buying one.”

    If he wanted to make a statement about the gun show “loophole”, he would have been a little better served by going to a gun show and buying an AR-15 and a high capacity mag. But even THAT would be a weak statement, since he’s generally law abiding.

    The Facebook posting smacks of a kid caught with his hand in the candy jar.

    It strains credulity to say the least.

    Once more we seem to have a public figure who wants to buy protection for himself but wants to deny you the same.

    1. At a gun show or not, if he bought it from an FFL holder he still would have been backgrounded. “Gun show loophole” is a cynical misnomer for a lawful exemption of private-party transfers from the NICS check.

      1. “At a gun show or not, if he bought it from an FFL holder he still would have been backgrounded. “Gun show loophole” is a cynical misnomer for a lawful exemption of private-party transfers from the NICS check.”

        Yeah that’s why I put “(alleged) gun show loophole” in my post and also put the word in quotes later in the pot. Only a tiny percentage of gun crime is committed with guns bought at a gun show.

      2. “At a gun show or not, if he bought it from an FFL holder he still would have been backgrounded. “Gun show loophole” is a cynical misnomer for a lawful exemption of private-party transfers from the NICS check.”

        Yeah that’s why I put “(alleged) gun show loophole” in my post and also put the word in quotes later in the pot. Only a tiny percentage of gun crime is committed with guns bought at a gun show. So focusing on the gun show sales is wasting time and effort addressing a non-issue.

      3. Mark Kelly show us that even somebody with as sketchy a background as an Astronaut can buy a gun. What is the world coming to?

    2. Because Dave doesn’t know how to argue and Jim and Chris seem to be busy today, I will say what they should have.

      The astronaut could have been saying, “Hey, I got a background check and it was super easy and look I can just buy an AR off the shelf because I just had a background check a couple days ago. The whole process was so fast and easy there is no reason not to do background checks on all gun sales.”

      This is something much harder to argue about but I am sure the commenters here are capable.

  4. So much for character of NASA’s astronaut corp. Wonder what other lies would be told to further an agenda. He is either lying on a federal firearms form, or lying to cover hypocracy in furtherance of an agenda.

    I could only hope the GOP reps recall him to testify under oath about this issue versus his previous testimony. I imagine he will take the Fifth, but just like Paul’s filibuster, the optics would be devastating.

    1. Q: What’s the difference between Lisa Nowak and Mark Kelly?

      A: Lisa Nowak only wanted to fuck William Oefelein, Mark Kelly wants to fuck the entire Country.

      1. I thought Nowak was only an Army Captain whereas Kelly is a Navy Captain, same as a full (bird) Colonel in the Army or Air Force?

        2. But suppose an astronaut bought both an AR-15 and diapers in a pretty short time period. Shouldn’t that set off some red flags? And what if Mark Kelly first asked the gun dealer for “a phased plasma pulse-laser in the forty watt range”? I think the federal database might have a few holes in it.

    2. Astronauts are just people and prone to all the failings common with other humans. People should stop putting them on a pedestal.

  5. So it is his contention that he bought a $1000 rifle from an FFL dealer with his own money just so he could turn it over to the police? Really?

  6. An obscure point seemingly, but answering question 11.a on the 4473 form in the affirmative doesn’t preclude the buyer from gifting the rifle to another (or selling it on) except if the intended ultimate recipient is also known to the purchaser to be a “prohibited person”. You can legally buy a gun as a gift for another (fathers parents across the country routinely do so every year); question 11.a addresses a fraudulent purchase as a stand-in for a prohibited person. I think we can safely assume the Tucson, AZ PD aren’t “prohibited person”(s) under the federal firearms regulations involved here.

    None of which has anything to do with Mr. Kelly’s personal honesty or ethical standards per se. He apparently didn’t lie on the form 4473 whether or not he intended to keep the rifle at the time he purchased it since neither he nor the local PD are excluded from firearm ownership. He does appear to have lied unnecessarily about his reasons for the purchase after the fact. Judge him as harshly as you wish, but judge him for what he did wrong.

    1. “He apparently didn’t lie on the form 4473 whether or not he intended to keep the rifle at the time he purchased it ”

      If he intended the gun for someone else at the time of purchase, then he did lie when filling out the for. They awesomeness of whomever he intended to purchase the gun for does not matter. You cant just say hey, I am buying this gun for an awesome person or group of people and therefore don’t have to be honest when answering questions about my intentions.

      Which comes down to what people are upset about. The media and the law are making judgements based on people’s awesomeness when determining who get prosecuted for breaking the law. Astronauts and Anchormen are Awesome, so they don’t need to follow the law and when they break the law its awesome.

    2. “Gross Income: Zero.”

      Well, (1) I intend to donate all of it before tax day and (2) a chunk has already been paid into witholding. So it doesn’t matter if I lie on the form just to avoid filling out the 17 -other- forms required by law because (a) my intentions are good, and (b) I’ve already paid more than is technically necessary.

      False but accurate!

Comments are closed.