listen here

Choose from 5 Gift Options with a minimum donation of $35

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Gabby Giffords’ Husband Buys AR-15

Breitbart – by AWR Hawkins

Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona. 

Breitbart News received a tip on this when Neil McCabe, editor of Guns & Patriots newsletter, contacted us on March 7 and said:

Mark E. Kelly, made purchases which included an AR-15–sometimes described as an “assault rifle”–at 3:30 pm on the afternoon of March 5 at Diamondback Police Supply, 170 S. Kolb Street, Tucson, AZ.

According to McCabe, witnesses to the purchases claimed Kelly purchased “high capacity” magazines as well.

On March 6, McCabe contacted Kelly’s gun control group–“Americans for Responsible Solutions”–and on March 8 they replied that his message had been passed on to colleagues who handle press requests. Breitbart News then began investigating the details surrounding the purchase, including visiting the gun store.

Suddenly, Kelly announced on his Facebook page that he was not going to keep the AR-15, which he has yet to pick up from the store.

Days after making the purchases, Kelly wrote on Facebook:

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 of it yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.

Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 30, Kelly had urged senators to restrict sales firearms based on their lethality–a common refrain with other witnesses that day, who argued that semi-automatic weapons, which chamber subsequent rounds as bullets are fired, and other guns with military-style features level the playing field against law enforcement.

Kelly and Giffords founded their own advocacy group to restrict gun rights, Americans for Responsible Solutions, in January. On its website, ARS wrote: “High capacity magazines are a deadly factor in gun violence.” A 30-round magazine is considered a high-capacity magazine.

The ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of high capacity magazines, which are not needed for hunting or self-defense, but have proven very lethal.”

Similarly, the ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of assault weapons.

In February, Kelly told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace that lawmakers need to address “assault weapons.” He said the purpose of an “assault weapon” is “to kill a lot of people very quickly,” and he lamented that such products were “too readily available.”

Kelly has not commented on whether he will also return the .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol he purchased.

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Gabby Giffords’ Husband Buys AR-15

  1. BloodStock says:

    Since Obama, McCain, Graham, and probably many other sell out congress critters have claimed America to be a battle field then it makes perfect sense that every American should be equipped with an AR-15 if they want one. If it’s a battle field then maybe we should all have heavier artillery than that as well. After all, since 9/11, it’s been pounded into our brain that the Al-Queda boogie man is hiding around every corner, so obviously we need 30 round magazines too!

    In February, Kelly told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace that lawmakers need to address “assault weapons.” He said the purpose of an “assault weapon” is “to kill a lot of people very quickly,” and he lamented that such products were “too readily available.” Yeah, well, shit head please explain the purpose of DHS to load up with a billion hollow points and 2700 tanks, duh.

  2. Zulu Cowboy says:

    Don’t be ashamed of it, Mr. Kelly…if someone had shot my wife in the head, I would want an AR-15 and a semi-automatic handgun to protect my family too! The thing you need to be ashamed of sir, is allowing the Obama administration to use your family’s tragedy, to disarm the rest of us…

  3. Diogenes says:

    One wonders: What if an automobile had been used by Laughner that day, instead of a gun? Would those fools be for outlawing ‘high-capacity assault cars?’

    Article the Second:
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    — Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
    — Miller v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).]

    “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”
    — Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    “A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
    — 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177.

    “Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.”
    — Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1963)

    “The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.”
    — State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)

    “It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.”
    — Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60

    “The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control and suppress its enjoyment…. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution….
    The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.’
    Thus it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce…. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the State. The privilege in question exists apart from State authority. It is guaranteed the People by the federal constitution.”
    — Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

    “The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”
    — People vs. Zerillo,[219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

    “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it.”
    — State v. Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    — Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491,(1966)

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
    — Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

    “We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
    — Simmons v. U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)]

  4. Dave says:

    He (Giffords) said the purpose of an “assault weapon” is “to kill a lot of people very quickly,” …
    That is what the second amendment was written for!
    Us gun owners MUST slam this lie about the 2A being written for “hunting” each & every time they try to fool the public.

  5. Eddie Slovik says:

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to affirm the right of civilians to possess military-style weapons to engage in military-like actions to effect “regime change” against King-like tyrants.

  6. Mark Schumacher - NV says:

    Obviously this man is no dummie. He likes the smell of those 7.62s’ early in the morning.

    • DrewnBama says:

      He bought an AR not an AK. Unless in a special chambering the AR standard is 5.56 mm or .223 caliber as compared to the standard AK in 7.62×39 or .308 caliber. There are uppers out there for the AR 15 in just about any caliber you can imagine, but considering he bought STANDARD CAPACITY 30 round mags I’d bet the farm his AR is 5.56.

  7. Bullwinkle says:

    But will he be able to find any ammunition for his weapons?

    I am sure he bought these just to keep them out of some crazy constitutionalists hands.

  8. NC says:

    Ahh….the infamous, “Do as I say and not as I do” philosophy. How typical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *