According to his own press, he bought one to give to another person.
So did the shop owner, who bought the gun from a third party to sell Kelly. Since he took delivery, isn't he more culpable?
I though it said that the sale did not go through, I thought that was the entire point of this post.
He didn't complete the transaction, but he did most certainly pay for it.
He paid money for an item. Is that, or is that not, buying it?
True, he did pay for it. He didn't take delivery. But that's a moot point. The gun wasn't the shop owner's to sell.
I admit that any business may deny service as they see fit. If the gun store owner thought it was a risk to his business and may be an illegal act, it is his DUTY to deny the purchase.
How would it be a "risk to his business and may be an illegal act" when he ended up doing what Kelly wanted? That is, donate the gun to the police!
Y'all really need to give up. You're making yourselves out as fools, Billy. Watch the video I posted earlier (the one that everyone but Zappa ignored):