“Yes, I planned all along to spend a thousand dollars on a gun that I was going to give away just to prove that an ex-astronaut with a sterling record could buy one.”
He bought the gun for exactly the same reason that everyone else buys one — it’s a great gun. Plus, he was probably concerned that he might not be able to do so in the future, if his campaign to take away the rights of the rest of us to do so is successful. And if his story is true, then he violated a federal gun law by signing a false statement when he purchased it.
Once he was caught, he had two choices. He could tell the truth, and be right with the law, or he could come up with this ridiculously implausible fairy tale, and be in violation of the law. So it’s apparently so important to him not to undermine his campaign to deprive us of our civil rights that he had to lie about it, and make himself a federal criminal (though of course, he won’t be prosecuted, because laws are for the little people).
Disgusting. He’s becoming this era’s Sarah Brady. And of course, accordingly, the media won’t give him the skepticism, even mockery, that he so richly deserves.
In general, I’m inclined to cut Kelly a little slack when it comes to his stated position on gun control:
He lived through the horrifically damaged, near death and difficult recovery of the love of his life. That would rattle anyone and it’s not hard to see how someone could turn into a strong gun control advocate after that.
And truth be told, I’ve never paid attention to him to know what his stated position is. Although recently I saw he argued for banning “large capacity mags.
And, no, he won’t be charged with a crime for lying on the form. I think the legal situation might be muddy enough for him to get by with a wink and a nod – I would think you’d have to actually turn the gun over to someone before you could be charged. And if he turned it over to the police, I doubt anyone would charge him.
But I also have to say that he does need to remain consistent. I don’t believe him when he says it was always his intention was to turn the Armalite Rifle in. (No mention of turning in the .45 huh?)
The price you pay for being busted, and caught in a huge hypocrisy, is that you lose your moral authority to advocate for a position. You no longer can be a public advocate.
Or at least that’s how it should work in a sane world.
Gregg, I’ve lost eight friends in aircraft accidents. On one occassion, I would have died myself, except I happened to miss the flight. Another friend was killed by a horse. Should those experiences turn me into an advocate of banning airplanes and horses?
Dr. Jonathon Clark lost his wife in the Columbia accident. Did that turn him into an opponent of human spaceflight?
Where would we be if everyone behaved that way?
And if Kelly was so “rattled,” why was he visiting a gun store and buying guns? That’s like someone who is rattled by horses bidding in a horse auction.
Ed,
I’m talking emotional response, not cool calculated intellectual thinking. It happens….you see something like that and live through something like that and maybe your are so horrified you just want to make it stop…rationality be da**ed. You feel your actual powerlessness and lack of controll and you want to regain control.
Some people be-weapon themselves.
others want to control people.
It’s not the response I would like to think I would make….but I haven’t experienced something like that up close.
We wouldn’t mind, except Giffords is trying to force his emotional response on US. He has every right to announce that his house is a gun-free zone; when he tries to wave his wife’s bloody shirt to make MY house a gun-free zone he’s way over the line and deserves neither mercy nor ‘understanding’.
Plus, watching him pimping his wife to get air time and attention is disgusting and sad.
Gregg, I’ve seen the elephant. I am not a Vulcan. I’m not even Mike Griffin. But never once have I believed that my personal feelings entitled me to control other people’s lives or tear up the Bill of Rights.
If you legitimize Kelly’s actions in seeking to ban guns based on his feelings, you also have to accept Michael Bloomberg wanting to ban jumbo soda cups based on his feelings. Where do we stop? There’s nothing in the US that hasn’t hurt someone’s feelings.
Mike Kelly is a test pilot. Making rational decisions in the face of emotional stress is in part of his job description. Are you saying he can’t do that?
Ed,
Yes I’m saying he evidently can’t do that.
So if he was doing something secret, why did he have somebody take pictures of him doing it?
On Facebook, he says he saw the AR15 on his way out..thats why he bought it.
On CNN he says the plan was all along to buy an AR15 and give to to the police.
It can’t be both.
The hallmark of a liar is inconsistency.
If you actually read his facebook post, you’ll see he said: 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.
My question stands – if you are trying to do something in secret, why do you ask your friend to take a picture of you doing the secret thing?
And my question stands, why has he changed his story?
If he wanted to make a point about the lack of background checks at gun shows, why did he not go to a gun show and attempt to buy one without a background check.
That’s the point – he didn’t change his story.
Since you obviously won’t read his post, here’s the entire post. You will see that he didn’t change his story:
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.
Chris, he said on CNN he went there with the intent of buying the AR. The Facebook post said he SAW it and then DECIDED to buy it. The first is deliberate, the second is incidential.
He is telling two different sotries, your facebook post quote confirms that in fact.
He got caught and he is spinning. He did not even make th einitial facebook post till days after he was reported for buying the AR by a third party.
Who knows what purpose he had for having the picture taken. It is a generic picture of him filling out the form. BTW, both the 45 and the AR would have been recorded on the same form.
If he was trying to make a point about the AR, even an imbecile would have at least used the rifle for a prop in the photo.
M Puckett – you’re trying to split a hair.
“you’re trying to split a hair.”
Actually Puckett’s story has much more believability than yours.
Hardly a hair. There is a huge difference if you say run a man over with your car accidently or you intended to run him over. Intent is completely different.
At a minimum, he is telling a blatant lie.
So “deciding” to buy something isn’t the same as “intending” to buy something? He went to the gun store intending to show that background checks weren’t a big problem – that’s why he had his buddy take the picture.
He wanted a pistol, and decided on seeing the AR to buy it too, in an effort to make a point. That’s why he’s keeping the pistol and giving the AR away.
Chris, he said on CNN he INTENDED to buy the AR BEFORE he went to the gun store.
Before, on facebook before his CNN interview, he said he saw the AR and decided to buy it AFTER he went to the gun store.
I know English isn’t your first language but pleas try and keep up.
As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15.
Oh, shiny object.
Bought that too.
Must be nice to be a former civil servant and have money to spend on impulse buys.
Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes.
Are you sure?
I don’t have possession yet
Wait, what? Didn’t you just say it takes a matter of minutes? It is days later and you still don’t have possession? What’s taking so long?
but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.
Not if they discover it was already used in a crime first. Then they’ll take possession before you do.
Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet.
Are you sure they can? You didn’t.
One article says that he doesn’t have the AR-15 because it was bought by the store from a customer, and the store needs to wait 20 days after it purchased the gun to give law enforcement a chance to see if it had been used in a crime.
If it had been a new weapon instead of a used one he may have been able to go home with it the same day (I don’t know).
Puckett said:
Kinda like Chris Gerrib.
Chris Gerrib keeps being inconsistent…
As if he is a liar or something.
He went in there with the intention of buying a .45 ACP
He fills out the paperwork and a friend takes the picture. So far the picture references the .45 purchase.
He starts to walk out and notices the Armalite Rifle-15….
He decides to buy that too (background check already having been accomplished).
He tells no one.
He gets busted by McCabe.
TWO DAYS LATER he posts in facebook and handily happens to have the picture of him filling out some paperwork. And he claims that he was going to give the rifle to the cops.
Now, Grand Admiral, ask yourself if that picture would have EVER been posted on FB along with the comments about turning the rifle over to the police if he wasn’t busted?
Since his actions do not support his stated “intention” there’s a good bet you’d never have seen that photo on FB or, if you did, it would have been with regard to buying the pistol.
Yes, the picture would have been posted, otherwise why take it?
So you’ve never taken a picture you didn’t post on FB?
I’ve never asked a friend to come with me to the gun store to take a picture I didn’t intend to use for something.
“I’ve never asked a friend to come with me to the gun store to take a picture I didn’t intend to use for something.”
Translation: I can’t bring myself to openly admit I don’t REALLY know why the picture was taken or what it’s intended use was. But since I’m a Grand Admiral of the Navy I can never openly admit I might be mistaken.
Gregg – actually, Kelly says why the picture was taken – to prove that background checks aren’t burdensome.
Gerrib,
you don’t get it (not unusual):
Anything he said after the fact of getting busted by McCabe is suspect. The two day delay speaks volumes.
It strains credulity.
And why does he want the .45? I don’t mind that he wants the .45, of course. But you have circumstantial evidence that puts his statements and actions 2 days after being busted and 3 days after the purchases into deep question.
So if he didn’t post to Facebook from the parking lot he’s lying? The guy posted on Facebook March 8, March 6 and February 22. He doesn’t post that often, and I have no idea what his calendar looked like. It’s also possible that whoever took the picture didn’t immediately send it to him.
Why don’t you ask Kelly on Facebook?
Oh, I am so sure he would take the time to actually answer.
Any more useless ideas Chris?
So why didn’t he take a picture holding the rifle as a prop? The picture taken is rather sterile and devoid of content.
Gregg – actually, Kelly says why the picture was taken – to prove that background checks aren’t burdensome.
And how does a picture prove that? The lack of shackles during the ordeal?
Why don’t you ask Kelly on Facebook?
We’ve moved the goalposts – first it was “Kelly’s a crook!!11!!” and “Kelly’s hiding something!!!11!!”
Now it’s “Kelly’s friend isn’t the best photographer!!11!”
The goal post hasn’t moved. Kelly lied. But if you want people discuss the other points you bring up, don’t accuse them of moving goal posts.
As Ace pointed out, if Kelly wanted to make a point about buying an AR-15 he would’ve bought an AR-15 that he could’ve walked out of the gunshop with. Instead he picked a second-hand AR-15 (probably a very spiffy one) that he couldn’t take possession of for two more weeks, completely ruining the idea that anyone can walk into a gunstore, pass a background check, and walk out with an AR-15, which he claims was the point of the exercise. The store had all kinds of AR-15’s that he could’ve walked out with, but he didn’t pick one of those.
Let’s be honest. Mark Kelley likes guns. He likes getting his pic taken with guns, because gun people are like that. He was probably documenting the purchase of his sweet new baby, a .45, and tossed in what was probably a highly-tweaked custom AR-15 that made him drool. Then the whole wife thing (and the wife’s friends) cropped up. Oopsie.
Backpedal like a French mime on a unicycle who just bumped into the front of a Panzer.
Instead he picked a second-hand AR-15
Tomorrow’s story (I’m sure Gerrib will be the messenger of it): Kelly didn’t want to give anymore money to the gun industry; that’s why he bought a 2nd hand AR-15. The .45? Shut-up, it’s legal, nobody is trying to ban them anyway. Quit being reactionary. Oh, and justice for Treyvon… Padilla too.
I guess I’m missing the part where someone accused him of being secret about it. Since I missed that part, I don’t know how relevant it is to argue if he was or was not being secret about it. The issue is why did he claim on a federal form he was purchasing it for himself and then later claim it was a straw purchase for law enforcement.
Sigivald’s right, that he may not have violated the law in terms of an illegal straw purchase. He did apparently lie in an affidavit that he signed saying it wasn’t a straw purchase. However, as Gerrib once claimed about George Zimmerman, Mark Kelly can explain it all to a court and see what a judge and jury says about it. Alas, I suspect prosecutorial discretion will occur here and be accepted by Gerrib as reasonable. Laws are for those who don’t work for the government.
It’s only a straw purchase if he charges the police for the weapon. See my response to Ken Anthony – the ATF form explicitly exempts gifts, and has a nice example of what a gift is.
So what’s the secret then you are complaining about?
The only thing consistent about your posts, Chris Gerrib, is that they are only supportive of whatever the Cathedral says to us peasants.
The rules don’t apply to Mark Kelly. Remember how he romanced Gabby Giffords by flying her all over the country in a government jet?
Too Big to Jail
He is only the seond Astronaut after Nowak to go from the Astronaut Corps to the Space Cadet League.
And if his story is true, then he violated a federal gun law by signing a false statement when he purchased it.
What law?
There’s no law against buying a gun “to give it away” – the law is that you have to be the actual purchaser, not buying it “for someone else” who is The Real Purchaser.
It’s legal to buy a gun as a gift to someone, since you’re “the real purchaser”, giving it to someone (eg. a relative or friend).
The ATF is very clear about the distinction between an illegal straw purchase and a legitimate gift – as long as the person filling out the 4473 takes real possession, and pays for it, it’s fine.
It’s thus perfectly legal to buy a gun “to hand it over to the police”, though it’s so ridiculous that nobody ever does it.
Form 4473 pdf doesn’t allow cut and paste but says, “Warning: you are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person.”
That’s not very ambiguous, but it does involve intent. It has nothing to do with who pays. For intent we have nothing but his own statement which is that it was a straw purchase because he explicitly states it was for the police department (which none of us actually believes.)
It’s about time laws did apply for these hypocrites.
If you scroll down to the instructions, it specifically says (page 4) “you are also the actual transferee / buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift to a third party.” It then goes on to give an example.
So, no laws were broken.
Thank you Chris Gerrib for pointing out the obvious to the determinedly ignorant. Mr. Kelly’s questionable ethics regarding all of our civil rights notwithstanding, neither he nor anyone else in America who buys a firearm expressly as a gift for another isn’t breaking federal law by doing so as long as the other is not known to be a “prohibited person” under federal gun ownership standards.
Depending on the state in which the sale took place (and his state of residence) he may have broken state law, but the BATFE doesn’t concern itself with that. AFAIK he legally bought the gun and then, possibly, lied about his reasons for doing so after the fact.
I’m disappointed in your research failure here Rand; your usual effort is so much better than this. That whole California clouded reality effect I suppose.
Actually many of us, here, are ignoring the legal issues of his post-bust claim that he bought the gun to give it away. It’s really irrelevant because no legal agency is going to charge him with a crime for turning a gun into the police.
What Gregg said.
The form didn’t ask if he was going to give the gun to anyone, all we can go by are the man’s statements about his intentions which appear to have changed.
You do think there would be some other paperwork and requirements if you are supplying arms to government agencies.
Chris, you got one right. Let white smoke arise from the Vatican.
But I don’t believe for a second that, that was his intent.
@Chris Gerrib “Gregg – actually, Kelly says why the picture was taken – to prove that background checks aren’t burdensome.”
What’s your point here, Chris? This is a red herring, and if you don’t understand why, I’ll suggest that if background checks aren’t burdensome, you wouldn’t mind having one done every time you get behind the wheel of a car. After all, you might have let your insurance lapse or something, so background checks would keep you off the roads.
Sorry–to make this the kind of strained and stupid analogy gun control people usually use, add that, it’s important to keep people with lapsed insurance (or, say, drivers’ licenses) off the roads because those things make them inherently bad drivers.
Having been rear-ended by a driver with no license or insurance, yes it is a good idea to keep those people off of the road.
We’re talking about checks when you purchase a gun, not every time you use it – hardly a burdensome thing.
I thought we were talking about a gun control crusader getting caught trying to buy a gun he wants to ban then later claiming it was all a joke.
Background checks? Kelly wants AR’s banned and here he is buying one. On top of that he bought a hand gun.
This isn’t about background checks. It is about people trying to ban guns and buying their own before the ban takes effect.
I’m horrified that he’s giving an AR-15 to the police. How are hispanic newspaper ladies supposed to put their lives back together after they’ve had their truck riddled with bullets, knowing that nefarious individuals are skirting the edge of the law to give the police even more firepower?
If Mark Kelly turns the guns over to the ATF instead of the local PD, isn’t that the same as using a third-party to give the gun to the Sinaloa drug cartel?
Seems to me that if he really wanted to do the world some good, he would give it to the Amish so that they could defend themselves against the Amish Mafia.
You guys just pegged my humor meter. Now I’m going to have to get it fixed.
<a href=http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/ALB13180.pdf]Chuck Schumer's new bill.PDF will fix that for you.
Bob Owen’s takes a look and finds:
I did some quick calculations and figure I should be serving about 6,000 years in jail for all the time I’ve spent on the road with a gun at home, plus the year or two I couldn’t remember where a couple of my guns were because they were too well hidden in my closet (but technically “lost” for Schumer’s purposes.)
This means that the sweet little .45 Mark Kelley just bought will land both he and his wife in jail for five years if he goes on another space flight for more than 7 days and forgets to take it with him.
No more borrowing guns at the shooting range?
Oh, but on the bright side of this, most Democrat legislators probably own some guns for the usual campaign “I’m not anti-gun” props, plus for personal protection because they’re high-profile people. They can hardly take the pistols to DC, so they probably leave them home with whoever watches the house. 5-years in jail! Vacate those Senate seats! 🙂
And Obama had that photo of himself shooting a shotgun, which he probably didn’t own (5-years in jail), but if he does own it and leaves it in the White House while he takes one of his usual vacations to Hawaii or overseas, 5-years in jail, along with any of his Secret Service detail that left their back-up guns at home with their families. Heck, half the country’s federal law enforcement officers are probably going to go to jail under this one.
I bow to Chuck Schumer for coming up with the means to carry out the great purge. 🙂
“You guys just pegged my humor meter. Now I’m going to have to get it fixed.”
Think of it as a public service.
Besides, it’s your big opportunity to cash in. Open up a shop in Lancaster county, Pa. Sell buggy back-window gun racks and suspender mounted holsters.
Normally I’d also suggest cow horns like Texans put on the hoods of their cars, but I don’t think the horses would like wearing them.
Well, whatever restrictions are put on the purchase of firearms, they haven’t said a word about renting and leasing. Many PD’s lease their firearms directly from the manufacturers (often with a $1 purchase option at the end of the lease), and I don’t see why 99-year leases with option to buy for a dollar wouldn’t become the norm between private parties if the government keeps trying to bury everyone in paperwork or keep tabs on all the personal weapons (toward the option to seize).