Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was once denied buying a couple of bottle of alcohol because the cashier thought I was drunk. I have no clue why she thought this.
So, they provided you with a legitimate reason? What does that have to do with this story? A black guy walked in, was immediately told he couldn't purchase a gun from the same place he's bought from before. You walked in appearing drunk and gave them a reason.
Has anyone, you included, offered another legitimate explanation for not selling to this individual?
Didn't think so. So there is no reason to believe it was for one reason: the color of his skin. Big surprise the gun nuts don't see anything wrong with that.
I am fine with the 14th Amendment being applied to businesses.
No one should be denied service simply due to their color, race, national origin, etc...
What if we are talking a rural area with only 1 grocery store and the next closest one is 45 minutes away? We should be fine with them refusing a person due to race? What about a hospital?
I am fine with discrimination for health codes (no shirt/shoes no service), but I don't want to condone blatant racism that rips the country in two.
If you are a public business you should be open to the public.
That's fine for the lunch counter at Woolworth's, but we're talking about a possible risk to public safety.
i think what he did was right, a business should have the right to refuse service to you, for any reason. a baker to a gun dealer. i dont like you, leave.
And people who think like you are the reason people like me have fully support the Civil Rights Act. People that think like you will take this nation back to the 1950s. I think the person who was refused that gun should sue that gun store owner.
Something tells that this stance you take is about much more than "he has a right to refuse service". Why did that gun store owner feel it was a good idea to refuse service to that man? And why are you okay with it?
already addressed this. Again, this is you all reaching and assuming crime will occur because he's black. Purchasing a cheaper gun while making a payment on the more expensive one doesn't seem out of place at all. But of course, it's criminal and shady because he's black.
What white guys experience has nothing to do with this. He wasn't refused a sale before at the same store from other clerks. The owner said no before he could even say a word. His excuse was an assumption about a future crime. Anything but a plane old racist. Yall defend racists with stupid excuses.
-layaway
-he had a friend
-speaking like "ghetto trash"
-black crime rates
-fake stories about how "i'm white and it happened to me"
-we can predict the future and a crime will occur
Moral of the story if you are an FFL and suspicious of a straw buy, you can only restrict sales to suspicious white guys. Black guys are exempt.
What is the definition of a regular customer?
Did he buy a large amount of firearms over a short amount of time?
Gang members will use someone with no criminal record to buy legit firearms. Is the FFL to assume the best and take a chance just to make a profit?
If you see something, say something, or in this case you have the power do something.
Wouldn't put it past the prospective buyer to be a shill of a media outlet trying to do an anti firearm expose on gun shops.
What is the rest of the story?
then again if the buyer was a member or sympathetic to the terror group, BLM, he shouldn't be able to buy a firearm.
The employee was clearly not comfortable about this. He confirmed the black guy bought "quite a few" other guns there. By every definition he is a regular customer.
Do now you are speculating that this guy may be buying for gang members? And you wonder why people see racism in this thread? That's totally unfair. Gun owners constantly scream "thou shall not infringe on our rights" as they justify the ownership of 10 AK's. But this guy is not allowed to buy multiple guns based on nothing but his skin color and that's OK. What about he infringement of his rights to own multiple guns?
Nope from every angle the store owner was a racist and those defending him are wrong IMO.
My stance on the 2nd Amendment is steadfast. I have always been pro-gun, and what happened to this man angers me. I think said gun owner refused him because of his race. I can't really think of any other good reason. Nowadays you can't say "we don't sell to Blacks". I hope that man sues the owner of that gun store and wins. Maybe more people thinking of trying such crap will think twice.
Has anyone, you included, offered another legitimate explanation for not selling to this individual?
Didn't think so. So there is no reason to believe it was for one reason: the color of his skin. Big surprise the gun nuts don't see anything wrong with that.
Again for the 100th time, he does not need a legitimate explanation, he is a FFL dealer and can refuse upon suspicion or for any reason, he has that right. If it was me being refused, I would go to another gun shop instead of pissing and moaning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
