Messages
584
Reactions
389
IDK all the facts, but I read about this at arfcom earlier today. What it appeared to be was that:

a) NY state officials filed lawsuits against many retailers (Brownells, Primary Arms, etc.) who sold 80%.
b) In a cucky response, UPS is cutting them all off so as not to be involved, whether legal or not and in support of anti-2A efforts by extreme prosecutors in NY state.

So since we all know, since NYRSPA v. Bruen, that nothing is actually illegal here, UPS does not look good here.

Again - IDK all the facts, just relaying what I've tried to piece together about this.
 
Messages
1,297
Reactions
2,680
Yeah... the past couple days those reports have been popping up all over, but I dunno if it's based on any fact or not. Ie., Supposedly Brownell's "announced" they would no longer be able to ship via UPS... yet... there is nothing on Brownell's website or news release from them to that effect. Being on Brownells mailing list.. I haven't received anything either and no possible order delay notices, which is pretty common from them. Losing access to UPS shipping would undoubtedly be cause for delays and surely a notice of some kind.(?)

Supposedly Rainer Arms has lost their UPS acct too. But again... nothing about it posted from them that I can see.

It may be true, but at the moment, it sniffs of "internet hoax".

You would think mainstream media would have picked up that kind of story, but so far, it seems most reports are all from kind of "fringe" sources.
 
Last Edited:

po18guy

Messages
4,132
Reactions
8,885
Does not pass the sniff test. Such merchandise would be returned to shipper "IF" known about.

In 1966, the Buffalo Springfield sang:
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away..."
 

Alexx1401

Messages
15,815
Reactions
38,148
If this is really what is happening the "villain" here will not be UPS. As always happens with stuff like this gun owners by a wide margin ignore the law makers until something effects them. Then they scream its someone else who is at fault. The current administration is scaring many places with the threat of going after them. If the Feds want to they can throw unlimited money are a Co and do anything they please. So the Co's in question of course just do what they are told. Mean while gun owners who refused to bother to vote blame the retailers, or the shippers for not "standing up" for rights. Easy to say when they are not the ones looking at what the Justice department is capable of doing. Don't like this? Make sure you vote well and get others to do the same. We are getting the government we deserve. LOT of gun owners voted for this administration. Now they are finding out how the old line "be careful what you ask for" works
 
Messages
1,124
Reactions
4,209
I find it suspicious.
The first big thing that jumps out at me is the lack of actual letterhead on the photo of the written notice. Just a logo...really?
The second big thing that jumps out at me is the lack of proper formatting of the letter itself. I'm just a small time dirt kickin' cow punchin' ranch owner, but I'd never send out business correspondence that unprofessionally formatted.
The third thing that jumps out at me is the question of the legality of a shipping company confiscating or destroying property that they have no ownership interest in. That sounds like it would qualify as criminal activity.
The last big thing that jumps out at me is the too convenient inclusion of a link to a retailer that will save the reader from being a victim of any issue caused by UPS deciding to confiscate or destroy your purchases.
To me, the whole "article" looks like nothing more than someone trying to convince me that "If you order, there's a high probability that your shipment might be confiscated or destroyed by UPS. So, use this link to make sure it doesn't".

Might be legitimate, but I'm calling "bulls#it" until I see more convincing evidence.
 
Messages
2,456
Reactions
3,356
I find it suspicious.
The first big thing that jumps out at me is the lack of actual letterhead on the photo of the written notice. Just a logo...really?
The second big thing that jumps out at me is the lack of proper formatting of the letter itself. I'm just a small time dirt kickin' cow punchin' ranch owner, but I'd never send out business correspondence that unprofessionally formatted.
The third thing that jumps out at me is the question of the legality of a shipping company confiscating or destroying property that they have no ownership interest in. That sounds like it would qualify as criminal activity.
The last big thing that jumps out at me is the too convenient inclusion of a link to a retailer that will save the reader from being a victim of any issue caused by UPS deciding to confiscate or destroy your purchases.
To me, the whole "article" looks like nothing more than someone trying to convince me that "If you order, there's a high probability that your shipment might be confiscated or destroyed by UPS. So, use this link to make sure it doesn't".

Might be legitimate, but I'm calling "bulls#it" until I see more convincing evidence.
You forgot "Why did -->UPS<--- use --->THE USPS<---- to deliver the news?"
 

Upcoming Events

Vancouver Gunshow
Ridgefield, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top