Tuesday, October 6, 2020

Arizona Voters

 You probably know fellow Arizonians considering voting for Mark Kelley for U.S. Senate because he isn't a Republican (boo! hiss!) and he has not taken a public stand supporting gun bans.  Keep in mind that he attempted a strawman purchase some years back.  3/13/13 Breitbart News:

Kelly, a gun regulation advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has explained that he bought an AR-15 rifle last week because he wanted to show how “easy” it was to buy an “assault weapon.” ...

Kelly may have completed the background check process for the pistol he bought, but not for the AR-15. On March 12, after Breitbart News contacted Diamondback Police Supply, the store where Kelly bought the weapons, the store’s owner Douglas MacKinlay provided the following statement to the media: 

On March 5, 2013 Mr. Mark Kelly purchased a Sig Sauer 45 caliber pistol and a Sig Sauer M400 5.56 AR style rifle from my company, Diamondback Police Supply Co. in Tucson, AZ. The rifle, having been purchased in trade from another customer, cannot be released to Mr. Kelly or any other customer for a minimum of 20 days in accordance with local ordinances. Mr. Kelly did not ask for any modifications to the rifle, nor are we making any. Once the hold period is up, Mr. Kelly must then show proper identification, complete the Federal Firearms Transfer Record (Form 4473) and successfully complete the NICS background check prior to his taking physical possession of the firearm. [emphasis added]

The “local ordinances” that apply to the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm AR-style rifle required that the AR-15 be placed on hold for 20 days because it was second-hand. If Kelly’s goal was to show how easy the background check system really is, why didn’t he buy a new “assault rifle” so he could take possession of it immediately, thereby allowing him to finish the background check on day he originally walked into the store–March 5?

When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Kelly on Monday what it was like going into a gun store and “buying an AR-15.” Kelly said that for such a “deadly” weapon, “especially with the high capacity magazines, it’s a pretty easy thing to do, even with the background check.” 

He went on to say: “public access to these [weapons] is too easy, as I demonstrated the other day.”

Yet Kelly has not completed the process of taking possession of the AR-15.

Kelly has openly stated that his plan from the beginning was to buy such a firearm and hand it over to the police (even though, as Breitbart News reported, under pending legislation the police would likely have to sell the AR-15 rather than destroying it, returning it to the streets).




  1. So, Kelly committed a federal felony?

    And was not investigated/arrested/indicted?

  2. The Arizona law which requires firearms impounded/confiscated by government entities to be sold, rather than destroyed, passed in 2013.

    Here is a good discussion of the history, which involved court challenges and the State Supreme Court upholding the ordinance.


    I dislike the term "return to the streets" very few firearms are found "on the streets". It is a derogatory phrase used to denigrate firearms owned by private citizens.

  3. Please "returning it to the streets." The concept implies that it goes to gangsters and drug cartels, but it's too large to be preferred by Gangsters, and requires too many finger movements to empty the magazine for the drug cartel soldiers.
    Excellent point about Kelly's devotion to logic and consistent reasoning.