Florence gun store refuses to do BGC for Antifa member, buyer says his rights violated

[CamoDeafie]

Yeah.....BY LAW......The Govt has set the parameters as to who is a PROHIBITED PERSON. I'm NOT saying that the Gun Shop should break that law. Only that.......the Gun shop would have "more cover". IF, the BGC was conducted.

NOW......
IF.......the gun shop did that. Well, YES.......they would be between a rock and a hard place. But say that they get a "proceed". Maybe......they might.....make the "Call" to deny the sale. Right or Wrong. YUP......making history and/or an expensive lawsuit.....just may be in their future.

Aloha, Mark

And if the BGC gets delayed for more than 3 days, and the FFL doesn't get the "go ahead or no" from either OSP or FBI and release for transfer, only to find that the BGC came back as "prohibited person " ? What then?

You and I both know this has happened before and that the ATF have gone after such FFLs for doing their due diligence that the FBI failed.

 

[ma96782]

And if the BGC gets delayed for more than 3 days, and the FFL doesn't get the "go ahead or no" from either OSP or FBI and release for transfer, only to find that the BGC came back as "prohibited person " ? What then?

You and I both know this has happened before and that the ATF have gone after such FFLs for doing their due diligence that the FBI failed.

Right.



IMHO.....leaving the Govt to make decisions and poor law(s) will lead to......

Piss Poor Results.

How could such idiots have been elected in the first place?

Aloha, Mark

 

[CamoDeafie]

Right.

View attachment 1741205

IMHO.....leaving the Govt to make decisions and poor law(s) will lead to......

Piss Poor Results.

How could such idiots have been elected in the first place?

Aloha, Mark

Yup. Can't fault the FFL for playing it safe. This could have been avoided had the guy not given the business card and stayed quiet.

 

[Knobgoblin]

This is way out in the theoretical realm , but , can't a business owner trespass any individual at any time on their own terms? I know it happens almost hourly all over the country. My limited view is that an individual or group of individuals is told by law enforcement that they are no longer welcome on the property. I understand that an obvious reason is typically present. I'm wondering if just cause is a legal necessity, or if the property/business, owner/management
has complete discretion??

 

[Juniper9mm]

Attention seeker

 

[ma96782]

RE: Trespass warnings and "Complete Discretion."

IMHO. NOPE.

That being said......
I suspect that.....
A REASON(s)......would/could bolster a case and/or public sentiment. Because......now a days.....the public will NEVER stand for an unreasonable case of _____(call it discrimination)____. I suspect that once the news gets ahold and runs amok with a seemingly unfavorable/unreasonable scenario. Well, the manager or owner will/should/would/could be soon looking for a new line work.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

RE : Trespass warnings and "Complete Discretion."

STORY TIME.

A long time ago, the City and County of Honolulu decided to provided "transitional housing" to the down and out people of the area. The City (together with NGOs) built "housing" and allowed "qualified people/resident(s)" to occupy the units/homes/apartments/rooms/shacks (whatever you want to call it). Yes, they paid something for the housing.

The appointed manager, wanted to run a good project and keep it "drug free". And to that end......the manager wanted to give out trespass warnings to anyone who she suspected was doing or dealing in illegal drugs.

One day, a certain lady came by to "visit" another resident.

Yup.....the visitor was suspected by the manager of providing illegal drugs to a certain resident. The police were called and the manager wanted the POLICE to issue the visitor a Trespass Warning.

As I said......the lady just said that she was "visiting" her friend. Note : Back then, there were not many cell phones and land lines to the "temp housing units" didn't happen (because of the costs).

Running a Rap and Warrant check.
There were no priors on the female and no outstanding warrants. And BTW, no other complaints from anyone else.

Q: Would it be RIGHT to issue/document a Trespass Warning? Mind you......KNOWING THAT the next Police Officer (should another "trespass" occur) would be obligated to ARREST?

Yes, back then......
The Police Dept. couldn't/didn't just give a citation/summons out.
The D/A's office wanted/insisted that the Police make a physical arrest.....before most anything would be brought to trial. There was "Warrant Advised Cases." But.....it was suppose to be used.....only when an offense occurred without the arresting police officer witnessing the actual offense.

Mind you that.....the Manager was always free to issue as many "Trespass Warnings" as she wished and to document such warnings. But.....she wanted the POLICE to document and to arrest the "visitor" should the warning be violated the NEXT TIME.

Aloha, Mark

PS......Imagine.....What If? You were renting an apartment. And the Apartment Manager got to decide, who could and couldn't visit you?

 

[Provincial]

I don't recall mention of the fact that it is accepted practice for some FFL's to refuse to handle shipments and BGC's for firearms that they did not sell.

It seems that the customer was in fact simply requesting the FFL to handle an incoming shipment. That is not a sale, and hence the FFL is not refusing to sell, only refusing to handle paperwork for a sale by a third party (namely, the seller from Colorado), and the buyer just showed up and dropped the request on the Florence FFL.

It could be argued that handling an interstate sale puts the receiving FFL in the position of "seller," but that isn't really the case. It is simply the government saying that someone has to do a background check before the buyer can take possession of the firearm.

 

[lucusloc]

What if the buyer presented a card with :
Proud Boys....
3%ers...
Oath Keepers....

Someone with an opposing view , could say that those were terrorist groups....
And refuse a sale.
One man's terrorist , is often another man's freedom fighter.

Please note that I do not think that the groups I mentioned are in fact terrorist groups...
Nor do I have anything in common with the groups listed on the buyer's card in the OP.
I dislike extremes in all forms.
Andy

If they could reasonably articulate why they thought such an association would lead the transaction to end in criminality then yes, I absolutely would endorse blocking the transaction. See my above post (#50) for more details.

This argument that FFLs (or anyone else) should ignore politics, religion or creed in their transactions leads down some very scary roads. At what point to we ignore the potential for straw purchases then? Do we give the guy with and MS13 or other gang affiliated tattoo across his forehead a gun just because he can pass a BGC? Or are we allowed to assume that association means that that individual may not have any scruples with passing that firearm off to his fellow gang buddies who cannot pass a BGC? If he answers all the questions correctly are we just supposed to overlook the association because he say he won't pass the firearm off for criminal use? I wonder what the ATF will think of that justification?

 

[ma96782]

RE : MS13 & those tattoos

Yup.
And why do the Democrats and Republicans......keep ignoring the FACT that there is a BIG problem with illegal immigration?

LOL. Tattoos? It's not only the guys.....
Yup, back in my day.....
No decent woman would have one on her body.

Unless she was Lydia..........

Aloha, Mark

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If they could reasonably articulate why they thought such an association would lead the transaction to end in criminality then yes, I absolutely would endorse blocking the transaction. See my above post (#50) for more details.

This argument that FFLs (or anyone else) should ignore politics, religion or creed in their transactions leads down some very scary roads. At what point to we ignore the potential for straw purchases then? Do we give the guy with and MS13 or other gang affiliated tattoo across his forehead a gun just because he can pass a BGC? Or are we allowed to assume that association means that that individual may not have any scruples with passing that firearm off to his fellow gang buddies who cannot pass a BGC? If he answers all the questions correctly are we just supposed to overlook the association because he say he won't pass the firearm off for criminal use? I wonder what the ATF will think of that justification?

A straw purchase in not the issue here.....that was not the case in my post which you quoted or the OP.

Speaking only for myself..and not as an FFL...
If the FFL thinks that something is wrong or off...then they should be free to refuse to go through with a sale or transaction.

However...I also think that if a person passed the BGC...then they should be able to get a firearm...
A tattoo , political group affiliation , what church they go , or not go to , etc.....by itself ...should not be the sole reason for refusal of sale / transaction.
Andy

Edit to hopefully make my position more clear.

 

[Member 53328]

What if the buyer presented a card with :
Proud Boys....
3%ers...
Oath Keepers....

Someone with an opposing view , could say that those were terrorist groups....
And refuse a sale.
One man's terrorist , is often another man's freedom fighter.

Please note that I do not think that the groups I mentioned are in fact terrorist groups...
Nor do I have anything in common with the groups listed on the buyer's card in the OP.
I dislike extremes in all forms.
Andy

I have a 3% tattoo along with an American flag and the second amendment tattooed down my shin. I don't frequent gun shops owned and operated by lefties so it's yet been an issue. Lol.

 

[Member 53328]

And if the FFL would have sold him the gun and he used it to go out and kill a bunch of cops, kids, or innocents at the next "protest" everyone would be singing a different tune….

 

[ma96782]

Consider for a moments that......



BUT, But, but.....
If we need more of them......

COUGH, Cough, cough.....

Aloha, Mark

PS.....look at the "end runs" that the ANTI-GUNNERS have attempted and were successful in doing with the PLCAA.

What's the PLCAA?

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Artilleryman]

IMHO.....

Public accommodations and even business open to the public.....are subject to being "Civil" in their interaction actions with the public. It should NOT be a matter of a : race, religion, political ideology, sexual orientation, membership in a certain group, etc.... etc..... Then add, that they are REGULATED and somewhat even PROTECTED (by law - by the Govt). So it's even more so. The idea that.....

"It's a Private Business and I can do as I please."

Well, it's been dead (or say that, it's been dying) for a long time.

Do I like it?

NO. And well, I don't get paid the BIG BUCKS to make a one size fits all rule/law. I'll leave that to someone with more smarts. That being said.....it's also my opinion that, the SCOUTS had sidestepped THAT IMPORTANT ISSUE in the Cake Baking case.

Aloha, Mark

PS......don't even try to bring up the argument about.....it's my home and my rules. Because.....(in most cases) your home is NOT open to the public.

We're not talking about something like baking a cake. Membership in a criminal / terrorist organization is reasonable ground for refusing to transfer a firearm.

 

[ma96782]

We're not talking about something like baking a cake. Membership in a criminal / terrorist organization is reasonable ground for refusing to transfer a firearm.

Me thinks that.....

You've missed the point.

So, who gets to decide these thing?

A: Hillary Clinton.

Rrrrrright.....
Yeah, she's real "Reasonable and has Common Sense." And, "She's a Lawyer."

So then.....
What's a "criminal/terrorist organization"?

The NRA.
Gun Owners of America.
The Republican Party.
Etc..... etc.....

Why not include.....
Anyone who owns a firearm?
Have a membership in a Gun Club?
Voted for TRUMP?
Etc..... etc.....

Please feel free to make a list and forward it to your legislator. And/or add to the above (as you see fit).

Aloha, Mark

 

[Member 53328]

Me thinks that.....

You've missed the point.

So, who gets to decide these thing?

A: Hillary Clinton.

Rrrrrright.....
Yeah, she's real "Reasonable and has Common Sense." And, "She's a Lawyer."

So then.....
What's a "criminal/terrorist organization"?

The NRA.
Gun Owners of America.
The Republican Party.
Etc..... etc.....

Why not include.....
Anyone who owns a firearm?
Have a membership in a Gun Club?
Voted for TRUMP?
Etc..... etc.....

Please feel free to make a list and forward it to your legislator. And/or add to the above (as you see fit).

Aloha, Mark

But, but, but…

I'm good with capitalism. I think PRIVATE company owners should be able to decide who they sell to and who they refuse to do business with. But I don't care about race, gender, religion, politics, etc. People are people…. If you're a POS or are pushing an agenda I disagree with then I will deal with someone else. Whether it be as a seller or a buyer. Same rules apply.

Character, ethics and morals are much more important than "identity politics."

(Add meme photo as needed to send home my view point).

 

[Artilleryman]

Me thinks that.....

You've missed the point.

So, who gets to decide these thing?

A: Hillary Clinton.

Rrrrrright.....
Yeah, she's real "Reasonable and has Common Sense." And, "She's a Lawyer."

So then.....
What's a "criminal/terrorist organization"?

The NRA.
Gun Owners of America.
The Republican Party.
Etc..... etc.....

Why not include.....
Anyone who owns a firearm?
Have a membership in a Gun Club?
Voted for TRUMP?
Etc..... etc.....

Please feel free to make a list and forward it to your legislator. And/or add to the above (as you see fit).

Aloha, Mark

I can see what you're driving at but the fact is antifa is regularly committing assaults, arson, looting…. And that's just scratching the surface. Knowingly transferring a firearm to a known member would be aiding the enemy. You can put all the theoretical convolutions or emotion into that you want but the fact remains unchanged. By all means, maintain whatever opinion you choose. But mine remains unchanged by your thought process.
no doubt there are others who concur with you. The scumbag won't have to search too far for an ffl to square him away. But the ffl in Florence did the right thing.

 

[Knobgoblin]

RE : Trespass warnings and "Complete Discretion."

STORY TIME.

A long time ago, the City and County of Honolulu decided to provided "transitional housing" to the down and out people of the area. The City (together with NGOs) built "housing" and allowed "qualified people/resident(s)" to occupy the units/homes/apartments/rooms/shacks (whatever you want to call it). Yes, they paid something for the housing.

The appointed manager, wanted to run a good project and keep it "drug free". And to that end......the manager wanted to give out trespass warnings to anyone who she suspected was doing or dealing in illegal drugs.

One day, a certain lady came by to "visit" another resident.

Yup.....the visitor was suspected by the manager of providing illegal drugs to a certain resident. The police were called and the manager wanted the POLICE to issue the visitor a Trespass Warning.

As I said......the lady just said that she was "visiting" her friend. Note : Back then, there were not many cell phones and land lines to the "temp housing units" didn't happen (because of the costs).

Running a Rap and Warrant check.
There were no priors on the female and no outstanding warrants. And BTW, no other complaints from anyone else.

Q: Would it be RIGHT to issue/document a Trespass Warning? Mind you......KNOWING THAT the next Police Officer (should another "trespass" occur) would be obligated to ARREST?

Yes, back then......
The Police Dept. couldn't/didn't just give a citation/summons out.
The D/A's office wanted/insisted that the Police make a physical arrest.....before most anything would be brought to trial. There was "Warrant Advised Cases." But.....it was suppose to be used.....only when an offense occurred without the arresting police officer witnessing the actual offense.

Mind you that.....the Manager was always free to issue as many "Trespass Warnings" as she wished and to document such warnings. But.....she wanted the POLICE to document and to arrest the "visitor" should the warning be violated the NEXT TIME.

Aloha, Mark

PS......Imagine.....What If? You were renting an apartment. And the Apartment Manager got to decide, who could and couldn't visit you?

Probably time to grow up and buy your own home. I reckon

 

[ma96782]

But, but, but…

I'm good with capitalism. I think PRIVATE company owners should be able to decide who they sell to and who they refuse to do business with. But I don't care about race, gender, religion, politics, etc. People are people…. If you're a POS or are pushing an agenda I disagree with then I will deal with someone else. Whether it be as a seller or a buyer. Same rules apply.

Character, ethics and morals are much more important than "identity politics."

(Add meme photo as needed to send home my view point).

It use to be that way. And I can applaud the stuff that use to be and made America GREAT.

But then.....
Whether we've improved or declined as a civilization?
Oh well.
It's probably WAY above my pay grade.

That being said.......

IF......the Govt is gonna have a RULE. Then, make it CLEAR. And, also protect those that will adhere to those rules. Don't leave the FFL out to suffer a law suit. Assuming, that the FFL followed what was asked of him/her to do.

Aloha, Mark