DOJ Investigating Gun Store

[LSUTiger]

http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/2 ... s-muslims/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

more government infringement. where's the outrage?

property rights are property rights!

one way around this I suppose is as an FFL ( besides established disqualifying reasons) if you don't feel the transaction is kosher you can refuse the sale/transfer?

[EEllis]

http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/2 ... s-muslims/

more government infringement. where's the outrage?

property rights are property rights!

one way around this I suppose is as an FFL ( besides established disqualifying reasons) if you don't feel the transaction is kosher you can refuse the sale/transfer?

You're making yourself look bad. Banning someone because their race or religion is not even close to the same as asking someone to cover their gun. Keep giving the anti's more ammo.

[philip964]

Publicity stunt. Failed to consider legal costs. Only thought of increased business. Even Bush's justice department would have in investigated.


Bad idea.

How about this instead.


require all gun or ammunition buyers sign a oath to defend the Costitution of the United State of America, denounce all it's enemies including but not limited to ISIS and Al Queida and to promise to use this weapon in defense of their, their family or their country's defense. Then allow the store to publish their name in advertising as they see fit.

Every so often publish the names of customers who have denounced ISIS and publish on social media.

Probably still a bad idea.

[jmra]

An FFL can refuse a sale if he isn't comfortable with the buyer. He better be able to articulate his reasoning to ensure that he is not discriminating based on a protected class (in this case religion). This guy removed any gray area by publicly stating he was not going to serve people based on their religion.

[The Annoyed Man]

Publicity stunt. Failed to consider legal costs. Only thought of increased business. Even Bush's justice department would have in investigated.


Bad idea.

How about this instead.


require all gun or ammunition buyers sign a oath to defend the Costitution of the United State of America, denounce all it's enemies including but not limited to ISIS and Al Queida and to promise to use this weapon in defense of their, their family or their country's defense. Then allow the store to publish their name in advertising as they see fit.

Every so often publish the names of customers who have denounced ISIS and publish on social media.

Probably still a bad idea.

Even the government no longer requires anyone taking the oath of citizenship be willing to defend the nation if called......

[LSUTiger]

http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/2 ... s-muslims/

more government infringement. where's the outrage?

property rights are property rights!

one way around this I suppose is as an FFL ( besides established disqualifying reasons) if you don't feel the transaction is kosher you can refuse the sale/transfer?

You're making yourself look bad. Banning someone because their race or religion is not even close to the same as asking someone to cover their gun. Keep giving the anti's more ammo.

In the PC, rainbow, leftist crowd, only their opinion counts and application of ideology is only applied when it suits their needs. If you can ban this because it offends you then I can ban that because it offends me. Things should work both ways but they don't. Either you believe in property rights or you don't.

Not talking about OC, I support the right not to allow it and I already covered this in another thread.

I will still eat there, but perhaps less than usual. I will make the effort to eat more at places that support open carry, provided they exist.

How strong is your support for property rights? I know the point the anti or less supportive OC crowd is trying to make. But try to denying service to the a protected class of people and see what that will do for your business. Your property is not yours (stop paying property taxes on it and see how long you get to keep it) and you have no rights in a public business (just the right to do what the governments tells you) if you can't deny service to anyone for any reason. But it's ok to deny service when it's PC. BALONEY!

I know this is a favorite claim by manny but it is just apples and oranges. Here you have a business that isn't refusing to do business with a certain "class" of people. It is just not allowing an activity, open carry of firearms. Your example would have barefoot people being a "class" that are being refused service. Only they aren't, they just must put on shoes. In this case the business isn't even posting no guns they are just asking the guns not be displayed. Anyone who could openly carry a handgun can still legally enter and carry to protect themselves and others. Don't go there if you want. It certainly doesn't bother me. But claims like this, without good consistent logic, hurt your cause not help.

First off, I said I would still eat there. I even voted to continue to eat there in the poll thingy. IMHO, when the government tells me who I am allowed or not allowed to discriminate against in my business then I really don't have as many property rights as I think. Why is my business different than by personal life?

Is it their right to not allow OC, absolutely. Is it my right to go else where if I choose, absolutely. Their is nothing that says a gay couple has to do business with my cake shop but let me try to refuse service to them because their lifestyle makes me uncomfortable or is offensive to me because of my religious beliefs and they will shut me down.

The point was I was trying to make is that the business owner has property rights and the government is infringing on those as well. So for all you bleeding heart liberal types, How strong is your support for property rights? Right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason or only when the government allows it?

So you can go on and on about property rights, apples, oranges or whatever, but recognize that the government tells me who I am allowed or not allowed to refuse service to. Is that illogical? No, it is a fact. As a business owner with property rights I should get to run my business the way I want to and if I lose or gain business then it's my call to make, but that isn't always the way it is.

So my rant was more about government infringement of property rights than it was about OC.

And no I am not a racist, I hate everyone equally , there is good and bad in all and I like racing. (RIP #3)

Talking about property rights, again. The ones we don't have. (The right to refuse service to anyone, anytime for any reason, not just the PC ones. That's having property rights. Why do my personal property rights differ from my business?)

And by the way I'm not making anyone look bad. Did I ban Muslims from my gun store? No, the guy in the article did. Should he have the right to, absolutely if you believe in property rights. If he and his customers are made uncomfortable by certain people he should have the right to decide if he wants them in his place of business, just like OC, confederate flags and gay wedding cakes. It's his business, his choice to make.

Why don't you tell him to quit making us look bad.

I applaud him for standing up for what he believes in, just make sure it's what the government tells you to believe in or your gonna be in trouble.

You would think anti gunners would like this. People being denied access to guns no matter what the cause. I'm interested to see how the anti gun establishment argues this one.

See what I mean about the lefty's picking and choosing what suits them but not applying it to themselves?

[Keith B]

And by the way I'm not making anyone look bad. Did I ban Muslims from my gun store? No, the guy in the article did. Should he have the right to, absolutely if you believe in property rights. If he and his customers are made uncomfortable by certain people he should have the right to decide if he wants them in his place of business, just like OC, confederate flags and gay wedding cakes. It's his business, his choice to make.

Why don't you tell him to quit making us look bad.

I applaud him for standing up for what he believes in, just make sure it's what the government tells you to believe in or your gonna be in trouble.

I'm sorry, you need to understand protected class vs. property rights. Just like a restaurant, grocery, place of employment can't ban on basis of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc, any store open to the public has to allow them in if all they are trying to do is ban them due to a Civil Rights protected item. That was what the gun store owner was doing. He will more than likely lose a large lawsuit and in turn end up out of business.

[LSUTiger]

And by the way I'm not making anyone look bad. Did I ban Muslims from my gun store? No, the guy in the article did. Should he have the right to, absolutely if you believe in property rights. If he and his customers are made uncomfortable by certain people he should have the right to decide if he wants them in his place of business, just like OC, confederate flags and gay wedding cakes. It's his business, his choice to make.

Why don't you tell him to quit making us look bad.

I applaud him for standing up for what he believes in, just make sure it's what the government tells you to believe in or your gonna be in trouble.

I'm sorry, you need to understand protected class vs. property rights. Just like a restaurant, grocery, place of employment can't ban on basis of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc, any store open to the public has to allow them in if all they are trying to do is ban them due to a Civil Rights protected item. That was what the gun store owner was doing. He will more than likely lose a large lawsuit and in turn end up out of business.

I understand perfectly, but it doesn't make it right or fair.

[Keith B]

I understand perfectly, but it doesn't make it right or fair.

Sure it does. Do you believe it is right to ban someone on color of their skin? Is it right to ban women? Protected classes are set to make sure that all people are treated 'right and fair'.

[mcscanner]

I understand perfectly, but it doesn't make it right or fair.

Sure it does. Do you believe it is right to ban someone on color of their skin? Is it right to ban women? Protected classes are set to make sure that all people are treated 'right and fair'.

It a legal question and I have no qualifications to know and maybe to comment. However... protected classes pursuing job, education and medical care seems appropriate for 'right and fair' treatment. If I don't want to sell/buy/service you because of your protected class classification, I am not going to. That seems 'right and fair' from the other direction.

Mike

[mojo84]

Interesting how some seem to think everything in society is black or white and absolute.

[philip964]

Dang there was a post and it disappeared.

I was going to quote it. I was about investing and only allowing one religious group of people to invest and providing above average returns.

It didn't work out for the one group of people, he allowed himself to help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[K.Mooneyham]

No matter what, the political left always gets their way. And I am constantly amazed by how many folks seem to think that is just peachy keen and cool. The "protected classes" only seem to be THEIR "protected classes". Now, to be honest with y'all on here, I think the gun store owner lacks some common sense or the ability to reason. He should have known that this administration will immediately go to the defense of certain groups while leaving others to flap in the breeze, we have been shown that again and again during this presidency. However, I am still amazed how someone can be forced to bake a "gay wedding" cake, or even one with the ISIS flag on it, under threat of governmental force. That isn't liberty and it sure isn't the free market at work, either.

[Glockster]

Not pointed at anyone in particular but about property rights, it seems that property rights get discussed a lot here as a constitutional right but I am having a hard time finding where exactly they are enumerated as a constitutional right (other than the "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" I find no other mention of the word property) so perhaps a cite for that would be good.

[mojo84]

Not pointed at anyone in particular but about property rights, it seems that property rights get discussed a lot here as a constitutional right but I am having a hard time finding where exactly they are enumerated as a constitutional right (other than the "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" I find no other mention of the word property) so perhaps a cite for that would be good.

Is it your opinion the only rights one has are those enumerated in the Constitution?