User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 2:53:57 PM EDT
[#1]
Yes, the local shop will if the owner thinks your are a shitbag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 2:54:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think aimless meant to say "if you had a shop with REASONABLE PRICES, you were sold out two weeks ago  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If I had a gun shop in Fegudishu I would have already had my inventory loaded up and temporarily moved to a safe location. So that would be a moot point.  if you had a shop in ferguson you were sold out 2 weeks ago  I think aimless meant to say "if you had a shop with REASONABLE PRICES, you were sold out two weeks ago |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 2:54:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Why not?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 2:56:20 PM EDT
[#4]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 2:59:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At my last ATF Audit, I was told I could deny a sale if I didn't like the shoes the customer was wearing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, a FFL can refuse a sale for pretty much any reason. It can just be a "gut" feeling or a suspicion, and that's enough justification to refuse a sale. No problems there. But, if a gun store consistently refused to sell guns to only black customers (or refused to sell guns to women customers) - then it would very quickly become a problem, obviously. Who would get involved in that situation? Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. At my last ATF Audit, I was told I could deny a sale if I didn't like the shoes the customer was wearing. The IOI that told you that is absolutely wrong, and that advice could get an FFL in trouble. A dealer better have a somewhat articulated argument for a reason to deny a purchase ( possible straw purchase, intoxicated, etc.). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:00:10 PM EDT
[#6]
A store owner cannot be compelled to sell anything to anyone.
Unless it's a wedding cake for homosexuals. 
Saint Peter |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:02:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OOOH, Hope and Change sticker =GTFO Federal Law, right on the 4473 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see the guy pull in the parking lot with a democrat sticker on his car..................................  OOOH, Hope and Change sticker =GTFO Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a FFL deny a sale if the purchaser comes in and smells light alcohol / weed but doesnt seem impaired? Weed equals a unlawful user i know that's a automatic denial. Federal Law, right on the 4473 I often wondered about this and other questions on form 4437. Typical answer is its federal law but WHO put it on the form to begin with? Was it part of legislation like the gun control bill? or some bureaucrat that thought it was needed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:02:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason Highspeed speaks truth. Deny at their descrition. sp |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:04:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
snip But, if a gun store consistently refused to sell guns to only black customers (or refused to sell guns to women customers) - then it would very quickly become a problem, obviously. Indeed it would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:06:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A store owner cannot be compelled to sell anything to anyone. Unless it's a wedding cake for homosexuals.
Saint Peter Your wrong, Denny's restaurant got in trouble for denying service to blacks. Local bar got in trouble for denying service to blacks. You cannot deny rental housing based on race, religion and a few other things. Hell, the stores that closed before the riots in Fergusson were threatened with fines for closing to the general public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:09:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is America. A private business should have the right to refuse any sale, to anyone, for any reason. I don't like the cut of your jib? GTFO. You mean, like wedding cakes? Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:10:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your wrong, Denny's restaurant got in trouble for denying service to blacks. Local bar got in trouble for denying service to blacks. You cannot deny rental housing based on race, religion and a few other things. Hell, the stores that closed before the riots in Fergusson were threatened with fines for closing to the general public. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A store owner cannot be compelled to sell anything to anyone. Unless it's a wedding cake for homosexuals.
Saint Peter Your wrong, Denny's restaurant got in trouble for denying service to blacks. Local bar got in trouble for denying service to blacks. You cannot deny rental housing based on race, religion and a few other things. Hell, the stores that closed before the riots in Fergusson were threatened with fines for closing to the general public. That was more of a snarky comment than a statement of fact. Check your snark meter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:13:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean, like wedding cakes? Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is America. A private business should have the right to refuse any sale, to anyone, for any reason. I don't like the cut of your jib? GTFO. You mean, like wedding cakes? Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit How do they do sensitivity training? Does it include shock therapy? Cross dressing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:14:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason yup |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:16:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryI often wondered about this and other questions on form 4437. Typical answer is its federal law but WHO put it on the form to begin with? Was it part of legislation like the gun control bill? or some bureaucrat that thought it was needed? Well most of the questions relate to prohibited persons that are codified into federal law. The gun control act of 1968 forbid the possession of firearms by felons, those using illegal drugs, those dishonorably discharged, etc. Now if you asking if the law stated that these questions must be asked on the form or some bureaucrat just decided what the form would say I honestly have no idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:17:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The IOI that told you that is absolutely wrong, and that advice could get an FFL in trouble. A dealer better have a somewhat articulated argument for a reason to deny a purchase ( possible straw purchase, intoxicated, etc.). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, a FFL can refuse a sale for pretty much any reason. It can just be a "gut" feeling or a suspicion, and that's enough justification to refuse a sale. No problems there. But, if a gun store consistently refused to sell guns to only black customers (or refused to sell guns to women customers) - then it would very quickly become a problem, obviously. Who would get involved in that situation? Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. At my last ATF Audit, I was told I could deny a sale if I didn't like the shoes the customer was wearing. The IOI that told you that is absolutely wrong, and that advice could get an FFL in trouble. A dealer better have a somewhat articulated argument for a reason to deny a purchase ( possible straw purchase, intoxicated, etc.). Why would he get into trouble for denying a sale ? I used to have an FFL and my IOI told me that could deny a sale if didn't feel comfortable and it was solely my discretion to allow a sale. He made it clear just because I could sell a gun did not mean I had to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:17:28 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yup Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason yup This. I work for a large gun store, and our policy is that you can deny a sale for any reason if it doesn't feel right to you. If something feels off I talk of over with coworkers, and if they agree with my hunch then we deny the sale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:18:16 PM EDT
[#18]
I've seen it twice.
One person was drunk. The other time , the person was ranting about killing someone. Deputy called both times. gd |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:23:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I work for a large gun store, and our policy is that you can deny a sale for any reason if it doesn't feel right to you. If something feels off I talk of over with coworkers, and if they agree with my hunch then we deny the sale. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason yup This. I work for a large gun store, and our policy is that you can deny a sale for any reason if it doesn't feel right to you. If something feels off I talk of over with coworkers, and if they agree with my hunch then we deny the sale. I know they put proceed or deny on the 4473, but is there another spot where you put why and which salesman denied the sale? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:25:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know they put proceed or deny on the 4473, but is there another spot where you put why and which salesman denied the sale? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason yup This. I work for a large gun store, and our policy is that you can deny a sale for any reason if it doesn't feel right to you. If something feels off I talk of over with coworkers, and if they agree with my hunch then we deny the sale. I know they put proceed or deny on the 4473, but is there another spot where you put why and which salesman denied the sale? I would think if you are denying the sale it would be before you run the background check so you wouldn't check either proceed or deny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:29:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Usually you just wouldn't let it even get to the paperwork part. I've asked nics for a deny on a customer and they gave it to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:30:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I used to have an FFL and my IOI told me that could deny a sale if didn't feel comfortable and it was solely my discretion to allow a sale. When was that? Pre-Heller/McDonald or after? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:32:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Yep, I did it several times when I was behind the counter. Usually if the customer appeared intoxicated. Occasionally, I would get one that I got the suicide vibe off of as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:33:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See now, I can't think of a single time it's taken me more than ten minutes, except once at a busy gun show. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes they can. If something looks fishy they can choose not to proceed. I get delayed every time. Never denied. See now, I can't think of a single time it's taken me more than ten minutes, except once at a busy gun show. I've had it take 4 days. Long enough where they FFL could complete the sale legally even though the NICS check was still in delayed status. Sucks having a shithead with the same name as me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:33:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, a FFL can refuse a sale for pretty much any reason. It can just be a "gut" feeling or a suspicion, and that's enough justification to refuse a sale. No problems there. But, if a gun store consistently refused to sell guns to only black customers (or refused to sell guns to women customers) - then it would very quickly become a problem, obviously. Who would get involved in that situation? Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. so far nothing has happened here A Muslim civil rights group is asking the Department of Justice to investigate an Arkansas shooting range whose owner recently declared it a "Muslim-free zone."
In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jenifer Wicks, a lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), writes that the declaration is "a violation of federal laws prohibiting racial and religious discrimination" and "will inevitably result in a hostile environment for ordinary Muslims in Arkansas." "This is not a coffee and donut shop," Jan Morgan, owner of the Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range in Hot Springs, Ark., wrote in an online post last month. "This is a live fire indoor shooting range ... Why would I want to rent or sell a gun and hand ammunition to someone who aligns himself with a religion that commands him to kill me?" Morgan, who says she has "read and studied" the Koran thoroughly, found "109 verses commanding hate, murder and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam." "People who shoot at my range come from all religious backgrounds," she wrote. "I do not care about their religious beliefs until or unless those beliefs command them to commit violent crimes against innocent people and I witness those crimes increasing, as we all have lately." Morgan claims that when she received her license to sell guns, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives informed her "that if we feel ANY reason for concern about selling someone a firearm, even sense that something is not right about an individual, or if we are concerned about that [person's] mental state, even if they pass a background check, we do not have to sell that person a gun. Two different ATF agents stressed that it is better to err on the side of caution. In other words, a federal agency has given [gun shops] discretion on firearms deals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:42:40 PM EDT
[#26]
I know of a gun shop/shooting range that has a "you're not welcome if you speak any language other than English in here" sign on their door.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Usually you just wouldn't let it even get to the paperwork part. I've asked nics for a deny on a customer and they gave it to me. Well, that's a pretty solid way to deny a sale, I guess.
«tc2k11» |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:45:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Gun control in the US basically came about in order to keep the "wrong color" people from arming themselves....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:49:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason In my opinion, FFLs have a responsibility to not sell to people that seem... off. Unless we want more government regulations, this is how it HAS to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:51:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civil rights act talks about "places of public accommodation" I don't know if that has been interpreted as broadly as gun stores. I suspect most states have state laws that would prohibit denying firearm sales based on race. I'm just guessing though and have not researched the issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, a FFL can refuse a sale for pretty much any reason. It can just be a "gut" feeling or a suspicion, and that's enough justification to refuse a sale. No problems there. But, if a gun store consistently refused to sell guns to only black customers (or refused to sell guns to women customers) - then it would very quickly become a problem, obviously. Who would get involved in that situation? Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. It would be fun to watch the DOJ argue that the civil rights act was violated because said individual has a constitutional right to own an AR, .50 cal or a FA. Might be like dividing by zero. Anyone got an FFL they don't won't anymore..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:51:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see the guy pull in the parking lot with a democrat sticker on his car.................................. Have you ever walked into a store or restaurant with the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Well, that's what you're doing, exercising your right to not take their money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:55:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Colorado? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a FFL deny a sale if the purchaser comes in and smells light alcohol / weed but doesnt seem impaired? Weed equals a unlawful user i know that's a automatic denial. If I were working the counter I'd refuse to sell to anyone smelling of booze or weed. And I would quit if the boss didn't back me up. I did work for a funstore 20+ yrs ago. It's been done before, although I didn't have to actually quit or threaten to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:56:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know of a gun shop/shooting range that has a "you're not welcome if you speak any language other than English in here" sign on their door. Well, that's a pretty solid way to deny a sale, I guess.
«tc2k11» Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know of a gun shop/shooting range that has a "you're not welcome if you speak any language other than English in here" sign on their door. Quoted:
Usually you just wouldn't let it even get to the paperwork part. I've asked nics for a deny on a customer and they gave it to me. Well, that's a pretty solid way to deny a sale, I guess.
«tc2k11» So if you don't even let them get to the paperwork part do you have to make a record of it? If you can /were to be sued you might not remember the person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:56:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you think you got denied for? Thanks man! I needed that laugh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:58:23 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know they put proceed or deny on the 4473, but is there another spot where you put why and which salesman denied the sale? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason yup This. I work for a large gun store, and our policy is that you can deny a sale for any reason if it doesn't feel right to you. If something feels off I talk of over with coworkers, and if they agree with my hunch then we deny the sale. I know they put proceed or deny on the 4473, but is there another spot where you put why and which salesman denied the sale? You deny them before they even get to paperwork. Examples of this are suspected straw purchases, drunks, people who smell like a snoop dog concert, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:00:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You deny them before they even get to paperwork. Examples of this are suspected straw purchases, drunks, people who smell like a snoop dog concert, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason yup This. I work for a large gun store, and our policy is that you can deny a sale for any reason if it doesn't feel right to you. If something feels off I talk of over with coworkers, and if they agree with my hunch then we deny the sale. I know they put proceed or deny on the 4473, but is there another spot where you put why and which salesman denied the sale? You deny them before they even get to paperwork. Examples of this are suspected straw purchases, drunks, people who smell like a snoop dog concert, etc. What if they already filled it out then noticed something off? Are you required to call NICS? Or do you rip it up and throw it away? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:08:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That thinking by BATFE predates both Heller and McDonald, which held that the ability to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. I think today a licensee had better be able to both articulate and document very solid grounds, with supporting witnesses, before denying someone the ability to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Anything less and the person could come after the licensee for a civil claim of discrimination and abrogation of their protected rights. Horseshit. Nothing in the Second Amendment says anything whatsoever about who I choose to sell a firearm. I think you slept through 5th grade social studies class because you seem to have forgotten that the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government. The First Amendment doesn't give someone the right to argue with the minister during a church service anymore than the Second Amendment requires me to sell a gun to any asshole that wants one. For Fucks Sake. 
One where there is serious issue is the BATFE letter stating that a person with a medical marijuana card is automatically addicted to or a habitual user of marijuana and therefore a prohibited person. Don't blame ATF, its part of the GCA '68. It doesn't require the person to be addicted, just a user of marijuana......and as marijuana is illegal under Federal law your "serious issue" theory is moot. The possesion of such a card is not indica of habitual use or addiction, or even one time use. All it can be is evidence the possessor of the card completed whatever bureaucratic process was required for issuance. I'd hate to be the licensee who became the test case for that policy, because I believe you'd loose. Sorry, but you would be wrong on several points. Try reading Federal law.
Another would be denying any non-Caucasian a purchase of unsubstantiated grounds. Deny a person of color for any reason other than a response other than "approved" or "proceed" and you are wide open to suit. Only if the SOLE reason is his skin color. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes you can... BATFE has told us we can stop a sale at anytime. Ie: Your acting nervous, making threats, straw purchase... etc....... That thinking by BATFE predates both Heller and McDonald, which held that the ability to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. I think today a licensee had better be able to both articulate and document very solid grounds, with supporting witnesses, before denying someone the ability to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Anything less and the person could come after the licensee for a civil claim of discrimination and abrogation of their protected rights. Horseshit. Nothing in the Second Amendment says anything whatsoever about who I choose to sell a firearm. I think you slept through 5th grade social studies class because you seem to have forgotten that the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government. The First Amendment doesn't give someone the right to argue with the minister during a church service anymore than the Second Amendment requires me to sell a gun to any asshole that wants one. For Fucks Sake.
One where there is serious issue is the BATFE letter stating that a person with a medical marijuana card is automatically addicted to or a habitual user of marijuana and therefore a prohibited person. Don't blame ATF, its part of the GCA '68. It doesn't require the person to be addicted, just a user of marijuana......and as marijuana is illegal under Federal law your "serious issue" theory is moot. The possesion of such a card is not indica of habitual use or addiction, or even one time use. All it can be is evidence the possessor of the card completed whatever bureaucratic process was required for issuance. I'd hate to be the licensee who became the test case for that policy, because I believe you'd loose. Sorry, but you would be wrong on several points. Try reading Federal law.
Another would be denying any non-Caucasian a purchase of unsubstantiated grounds. Deny a person of color for any reason other than a response other than "approved" or "proceed" and you are wide open to suit. Only if the SOLE reason is his skin color. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:13:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you think you got denied for? WINNER! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:14:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. [div style='text-align: center;'] http:// https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20120422/toostupid.jpg dp lol that's good |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:16:41 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The IOI that told you that is absolutely wrong, and that advice could get an FFL in trouble. A dealer better have a somewhat articulated argument for a reason to deny a purchase ( possible straw purchase, intoxicated, etc.). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, a FFL can refuse a sale for pretty much any reason. It can just be a "gut" feeling or a suspicion, and that's enough justification to refuse a sale. No problems there. But, if a gun store consistently refused to sell guns to only black customers (or refused to sell guns to women customers) - then it would very quickly become a problem, obviously. Who would get involved in that situation? Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. At my last ATF Audit, I was told I could deny a sale if I didn't like the shoes the customer was wearing. The IOI that told you that is absolutely wrong, and that advice could get an FFL in trouble. A dealer better have a somewhat articulated argument for a reason to deny a purchase ( possible straw purchase, intoxicated, etc.). No sir.............you are absolutely wrong.
Stores are always free to have any rule they want (ie No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service) as long as it does not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If I choose to not sell to a guy wearing saggy britches, an Obama T shirt, or with a Detroit Pistons jersey.............that's MY right. The Civil Right Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin..........................and says NOTHING about shoes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:19:58 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When was that? Pre-Heller/McDonald or after? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I used to have an FFL and my IOI told me that could deny a sale if didn't feel comfortable and it was solely my discretion to allow a sale. When was that? Pre-Heller/McDonald or after? Heller/McDonald have nothing to do with a licensed dealers ability to choose who he will do business with. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:20:11 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can deny any sale for any reason Unless it is a gay couple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:48:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When was that? Pre-Heller/McDonald or after? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I used to have an FFL and my IOI told me that could deny a sale if didn't feel comfortable and it was solely my discretion to allow a sale. When was that? Pre-Heller/McDonald or after? I got it in 2011. So post Heller. It expired this year and I did not renew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:51:29 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes you can... BATFE has told us we can stop a sale at anytime. Ie: Your acting nervous, making threats, straw purchase... etc....... That thinking by BATFE predates both Heller and McDonald, which held that the ability to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. I think today a licensee had better be able to both articulate and document very solid grounds, with supporting witnesses, before denying someone the ability to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Anything less and the person could come after the licensee for a civil claim of discrimination and abrogation of their protected rights. Horseshit. Nothing in the Second Amendment says anything whatsoever about who I choose to sell a firearm. I think you slept through 5th grade social studies class because you seem to have forgotten that the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government. The First Amendment doesn't give someone the right to argue with the minister during a church service anymore than the Second Amendment requires me to sell a gun to any asshole that wants one. For Fucks Sake.
One where there is serious issue is the BATFE letter stating that a person with a medical marijuana card is automatically addicted to or a habitual user of marijuana and therefore a prohibited person. Don't blame ATF, its part of the GCA '68. It doesn't require the person to be addicted, just a user of marijuana......and as marijuana is illegal under Federal law your "serious issue" theory is moot. The possesion of such a card is not indica of habitual use or addiction, or even one time use. All it can be is evidence the possessor of the card completed whatever bureaucratic process was required for issuance. I'd hate to be the licensee who became the test case for that policy, because I believe you'd loose. Sorry, but you would be wrong on several points. Try reading Federal law.
Another would be denying any non-Caucasian a purchase of unsubstantiated grounds. Deny a person of color for any reason other than a response other than "approved" or "proceed" and you are wide open to suit. Only if the SOLE reason is his skin color. Why does possessing a marijuana card mean he uses marijuana ? Isn't it possible such a person could have obtained the card but changed their mind about using it ? Or got it just for the novelty of it. Personally as an FFL I doubt I'd accept liability from selling to anyon with the card, but I don't see the card alone reason they should be considered a prohibited person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:58:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WINNER!
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What do you think you got denied for? WINNER!
http://www.angelfire.com/ok2/xstories/patty.html 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:58:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is America. A private business should have the right to refuse any sale, to anyone, for any reason. I don't like the cut of your jib? GTFO. Oh yeah? What about that lady who posted that was going to deny sales to muslims? Hell, we even had some crybabies here decrying her intentions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 4:58:45 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. [div style='text-align: center;'] http:// https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20120422/toostupid.jpg dp Is that GRB? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 5:10:48 PM EDT
[#47]
During the interview with my IOI a couple of weeks ago, I specifically asked her about this topic.
My first question was "Would I face any legal consequences and/or BATFE/FFL related sanctions if I chose not to complete a transfer AFTER someone passed a NICS check" IOI replied that an FFL holder can choose for any reason to not complete a transfer, even after NICS passes I followed up with "Just to clarify; if someone passes the NICS and then makes some off color comment, or I spot a gang tattoo (we have more than a few MS-13 morons in my area), or I suddenly decide that I don't want to transfer a firearm to them simply because I don't like the 2nd letter of their middle name, as long as I don't keep their money, the worst "legal consequence" I face is a lawsuit?" IOI replied with "Correct" So, yeah, if an FFL decides not to complete a transfer, the would-be transferee can call Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, his momma, yo momma, and Obama and the BATFE and law enforcement still won't care. ETA: For those wondering/discussing/arguing about it: Yes, anyone can sue you for not completing a transfer, hell, even a prohibited person could. Unless it's civil rights/discrimination related, it would probably result in nothing more than their lawyer or a judge yelling at them for wasting the court's time. If the person does claim you discriminated against them/violated their civil rights, it would be their claim against your word that they made threatening remarks/smelled of alcohol, etc.,.. Basically, any dealer stupid enough to lose a lawsuit for not completing a transfer is to stupid to own firearms, let alone sell them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 5:27:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well most of the questions relate to prohibited persons that are codified into federal law. The gun control act of 1968 forbid the possession of firearms by felons, those using illegal drugs, those dishonorably discharged, etc. Now if you asking if the law stated that these questions must be asked on the form or some bureaucrat just decided what the form would say I honestly have no idea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I often wondered about this and other questions on form 4437. Typical answer is its federal law but WHO put it on the form to begin with? Was it part of legislation like the gun control bill? or some bureaucrat that thought it was needed? Well most of the questions relate to prohibited persons that are codified into federal law. The gun control act of 1968 forbid the possession of firearms by felons, those using illegal drugs, those dishonorably discharged, etc. Now if you asking if the law stated that these questions must be asked on the form or some bureaucrat just decided what the form would say I honestly have no idea. Presumably a bueracrat came up with the form. However, they would have been simply codifying the law into a simple checklist per there instructions to "carry out the law" for congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 5:28:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, a FFL can refuse a sale for pretty much any reason. It can just be a "gut" feeling or a suspicion, and that's enough justification to refuse a sale. No problems there. But, if a gun store consistently refused to sell guns to only black customers (or refused to sell guns to women customers) - then it would very quickly become a problem, obviously. Who would get involved in that situation? Certainly DOJ - and probably also ATF. It's clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act, so DOJ would probably be the ones who dealt with the initial complaint - and would decide whether or not to prosecute. ATF would almost certainly be brought in, and would presumably pull the FFL. If you were sitting on a big pile of money, that would ALMOST be worth doing, just to see which way Jackson, Sharpton, and the rest of the race hustlers would jump. Should they back EE-vil gun sales, even if the seller is racist?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 5:30:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gun control in the US basically came about in order to keep the "wrong color" people from arming themselves.... "Wrong class" as well. We pretend like liberalism and control is a new thing. But in all honesty we peaked as a country some time ago as far as individual liberty and egalitarianism goes and they've been fighting tooth and nail to reduce that ever since. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
