General Discussion

louis-t

(24,618 posts)

57. I am not saying AZ laws trump federal laws.

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:42 PM

Mar 2013

It says federal prosecutors 'may have been reluctant to' charge anyone in a pro-gun state. It says the feds were saying it was legal to transfer weapons in AZ. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS AGAINST THE FEDERAL LAWS. What I don't agree with is the DOJ or the evil Obama purposely 'killed a bunch of people so'z he could come and take yer gunss away'. I would tend to side with the guys on the ground doing the grunt work rather than Darrell Issa, who never makes a statement or charge that isn't politically motivated, or any other right-wing whack job. I have a hard time believing the gun store owners who charge that they were 'forced to ignore the laws' by the evil gub-mint. They DO have a dog in this fight.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gun shop blocks Mark Kelly�s right to buy AR-15, citing political �intent� [View all] kpete Mar 2013 OP

Huh? No matter the he has no right to own an AR-15 unless he is part of a well regulated militia.. bowens43 Mar 2013 #1

He is a part of a well regulated militia sarisataka Mar 2013 #4

I guess the government can't regulate guns, but some POS store owner in Tuscon can... joeybee12 Mar 2013 #2

Look at it this way. The USA has pharmacists that won't R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #6

You cannot deny someone their 2nd amendment rights based on political intent. Rex Mar 2013 #3

The gun shop owner has the right to do business with whomever he chooses as long as it is Purveyor Mar 2013 #5

Isn't it discrimination on political grounds? R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #13

You or anyone else is free to discriminate on political grounds. former9thward Mar 2013 #14

Do you have any court rulings that go with that? R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #21

This is a link to a law blog for employers. former9thward Mar 2013 #22

TY. Any form of discrimination anywhere should not be allowable. R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #24

Our society discriminates all the time between criminals that should be locked up and innocent AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #53

Sure you can. Xithras Mar 2013 #7

Okay thanks, I had it backwards then. Rex Mar 2013 #8

"gun control advocate" is not a protected class cthulu2016 Mar 2013 #9

But the transaction already went through or so I thought. Rex Mar 2013 #10

You *can*, but you look like a hypocrite doing it. nt Robb Mar 2013 #11

Well at least this keeps the issue in the news. Rex Mar 2013 #12

After it became known that Kelly purchased this weapon ... former9thward Mar 2013 #15

Bullshit. Cite the law. Robb Mar 2013 #17

Destroying weapons is not buying them with the intent of turning them over to a 3rd party. former9thward Mar 2013 #18

He was purchasing it for himself. To use it. cthulu2016 Mar 2013 #19

No, that is not what he said. former9thward Mar 2013 #20

Well, if he announced a different intent later... Orsino Mar 2013 #25

Delusional paranoia. Robb Mar 2013 #26

I cited the law which is what you requested. former9thward Mar 2013 #32

For the validity of your interpretation, you might have cited the food pyramid. Robb Mar 2013 #33

The gun shop owner knew he was being set up. former9thward Mar 2013 #36

Laughable. Look up "prohibited person." Robb Mar 2013 #38

That is not what Form 4473 says. former9thward Mar 2013 #39

Completely incorrect. Good lord. Robb Mar 2013 #42

Do I think given the facts we know that Kelly would be indicted or convicted? former9thward Mar 2013 #45

If you can't even *define* "straw purchase" correctly, you shouldn't be selling guns. Robb Mar 2013 #46

From what I have read, AZ law says you can legally louis-t Mar 2013 #28

BS. It doesn't matter what AZ law says, straw purchases .... oldhippie Mar 2013 #30

Then why would the AZ US Attorney not allow the ATF to arrest louis-t Mar 2013 #47

The AZ US Attorney has what .... oldhippie Mar 2013 #49

Stating that I will do A does not deny my intent to do B, LanternWaste Mar 2013 #34

Seems like the ones who scream the loudest about gun rights... cynatnite Mar 2013 #16

Doesn't make sense treestar Mar 2013 #23

That is a "straw purchase" tularetom Mar 2013 #27

Not in AZ. The law there says you can buy for personal use, then louis-t Mar 2013 #29

Tell me again how Arizona law trumps Federal law ....... oldhippie Mar 2013 #31

Sorry, it was actually the Fortune Magazine article. louis-t Mar 2013 #48

Sorry, I have read none of the magazine articles .... oldhippie Mar 2013 #50

I'm back. Here's one of the links: louis-t Mar 2013 #51

Again, why does a US Attorney cite or care about AZ law? oldhippie Mar 2013 #54

I am not saying AZ laws trump federal laws. louis-t Mar 2013 #57

So why do you think ..... oldhippie Mar 2013 #58

How in hell can this be twisted in any way to be a straw purchase? baldguy Mar 2013 #40

Pretty easy, actually ..... oldhippie Mar 2013 #52

That's been answered above in this very thread: baldguy Mar 2013 #55

That's case law, not US Code ...... oldhippie Mar 2013 #56

Isint buying a gun with the intent to give it to a 3rd party textbook straw purchase? davepc Mar 2013 #35

Why don't you go and find out what a straw purchase actually is, and get back to us. baldguy Mar 2013 #43

Now if only he can do the same for the next "responsible" gun owner Rajesh Mar 2013 #37

So what about the pistol? Clames Mar 2013 #41

They just rooked him out of a great resale. ileus Mar 2013 #44